What's wrong with religion?

[charles_r51]

:-2 diuretic cat is much better fresh caught and fried on a steel shovel over open fire. something about the smoke, i think.



koan don'tyou like fish? jesus said we supposed to be fishher men, right? so we're talking business.

:driving: ted we get a few whoppers around here too. they don't them call fish tales for nothin'. not that we'd say anything, of course.

:-4

[charles_r51]

:-3 a silly little fish remark and all kinds of sharks are in for the kill. hmmmm. what will the next one be like, a whale of a whopper? or a few scales in a pile? don't answer, just enjoy the sweet savor of the garbage dump as the cats gather for there fish dinners.:-5 :-5

[Ted]

On the question "What is wrong with religion".

As a school administrator it was my job to supervise and evaluate teachers and prepare such reports as required. Now this involved visiting the classrooms and observing the teacher at work with the kids and also how the children were responding. It seems to me there are two main ways of approaching this particular job: I can go in asking what is wrong here and be sure of finding something to criticise or I can go in with a positive attitude to find what I see is right and good and make positive criticism for improvement. One is destructive and the other is constructive and non threatening.

So it is with such questions. We might also ask "What is wrong with science?" or "What is wrong with the government?" or "What is wrong with the way the team played ball?" etc.

It doesn't matter where you go or what you see you can always find something wrong or something to bitch about which is neither helpful or constructive. Is the person one whose glass is half full or half empty?

Shalom

Ted:-6

[koan]

Ted wrote: On the question "What is wrong with religion".

As a school administrator it was my job to supervise and evaluate teachers and prepare such reports as required. Now this involved visiting the classrooms and observing the teacher at work with the kids and also how the children were responding. It seems to me there are two main ways of approaching this particular job: I can go in asking what is wrong here and be sure of finding something to criticise or I can go in with a positive attitude to find what I see is right and good and make positive criticism for improvement. One is destructive and the other is constructive and non threatening.

So it is with such questions. We might also ask "What is wrong with science?" or "What is wrong with the government?" or "What is wrong with the way the team played ball?" etc.

It doesn't matter where you go or what you see you can always find something wrong or something to bitch about which is neither helpful or constructive. Is the person one whose glass is half full or half empty?

Shalom

Ted:-6


That's the next question. What is wrong with science...telling us Pluto isn't a planet!

[charles_r51]

you know scientist never make mistakes on such weighty problems as planet-making. besides, it just looks so small, next to zena. who would dare call pluto a planet now that zena is in charge. :-3

[charles_r51]

Diuretic wrote: I'm just PERCHed here on my computer.

Charles that sounds an interesting way to cook catfish, if I get back to Tx I may have to ask around and see who does it that way


:D perch is good. a bit on the lightwieght side, but still good to eat. just watch out for the bones, they're hard to see.

for the cat, a bit of salt, and cornbread mix, in lighty oiled shovel is good!!! mmmmmmmmmmmmmm.:-4 :-4

[charles_r51]

Ted wrote: On the question "What is wrong with religion".

As a school administrator it was my job to supervise and evaluate teachers and prepare such reports as required. Now this involved visiting the classrooms and observing the teacher at work with the kids and also how the children were responding. It seems to me there are two main ways of approaching this particular job: I can go in asking what is wrong here and be sure of finding something to criticise or I can go in with a positive attitude to find what I see is right and good and make positive criticism for improvement. One is destructive and the other is constructive and non threatening.

So it is with such questions. We might also ask "What is wrong with science?" or "What is wrong with the government?" or "What is wrong with the way the team played ball?" etc.

It doesn't matter where you go or what you see you can always find something wrong or something to bitch about which is neither helpful or constructive. Is the person one whose glass is half full or half empty?

Shalom

Ted:-6


:-5 do we have to go back? :-4 :-4

[charles_r51]

koan wrote: That's the next question. What is wrong with science...telling us Pluto isn't a planet!


should we all write our congressmen, or representatives or whoever to make pluto a real planet again? :-4 :-4

[koan]

charles_r51 wrote: you know scientist never make mistakes on such weighty problems as planet-making. besides, it just looks so small, next to zena. who would dare call pluto a planet now that zena is in charge. :-3


If you ask scientologists, it is xenu in charge.

[charles_r51]

what's a xenu? some kind of animal like a gnu? besides, asking a scientoligist anything isn't any fun. seems they don't believe in anything but hubbard. and i wasn't impressed by him, so i didn't buy any of his novels.:-4 :-4

[koan]

charles_r51 wrote: what's a xenu? some kind of animal like a gnu? besides, asking a scientoligist anything isn't any fun. seems they don't believe in anything but hubbard. and i wasn't impressed by him, so i didn't buy any of his novels.:-4 :-4


Below you will see two pictures. One is xena(the planet) the other is xenu the galactic terrorist.

Attached files

[charles_r51]

xena is nice, but xenu looks like a frog that is fixin to lose his lunch. :-4 :-4

[Galbally]

Scientology, all the fun of religion and science with none of the upsides of either, brilliant. I did read battlefield earth once and it is rubbish, though kinda fun in a kitsch way. But I never understood how people got from there to a religion, its not like people actually believe in Hobbits, or Vulcans (well outside of conventions anyway) so Hubbard got one over on the other sci-fi/fantasy writers there.

As for more established religions, I don't think that its really possible to seperate religion from humanity in general as it seems such a generalized thing. People have always had a need to explain the world around them and for as long as there has been people, religion has been the number one way. And despite the scientific revolution and 450 years of scientific investigation that has in general undermined much of the older worldview, it remains number one. I think the interesting question is why is religion fundamental to human belief systems? Whatever about religion describing the reality of either this world or the next, it certainly says a lot about human nature. It would apear to me that the great power of major religions is in that people need something and they are simple, easily defined and understood, appaently unchanging in an uncertain world (though this is not the actual reality) and they do undeniably speak to people's inner (what they may consider moral) selves, and have the benefit of millenia of a simple message being constantly repeated.

The philosophical weaknesses of all religions are that they are based on ideas or dogmas that are by their nature unprovable in any material sense, and therefore generally open to any one individual's or group's interpretation of them. Of course religious people would (in general) claim that there own particular religion is divine in inspiration and needs no proof, and even attempting to proove things is heretical (a convienent argument for someone trying to enforce an untestable idea). There is no room for argument with absolutist ideas about god or anything else as by their nature they brook no argument, which has of course been the cause of the never-ending clash between science and religion as science is open-ended, self-correcting and about arguing and proving things using numbers or evidence.

So I think religion is neither bad nor good in the abstract, though my prediliction is not religion (in itself, I admit, a bias). Though in practice religion has certainly has been the pretxt used for a lot of conflict, that is undeniable. But is also undeniably one of the prime drivers of all human civilization, imagine a western world where there had never been christianity, or an Israel without Judaism, Islamic civilization without well , Islam, in fact is there any major world civilization without a religion? China would be closest as Confucianism is a philosophy more than a religion, but given enough time any static philosophy becomes indistinguishable from religion.

The major "problem" (to use a perjorative) as I see it is that all groupings in human society need an "other" to define themselves, and this is the prime motivation for ideas such as organized warfare, which can't happen without some unifying idea behind it, whether it be religion, nationalism, political ideology, race, ethnicity etc etc. Organized war is also (whether people like it or not) a prime driver of civilization and organization, hardly an ideal, but a human reality unfortunatly, there would be no modern world without it. In the final analysis generalized religion is as morally neutral as all other great human ideas, which may sound absurd, but it isn't. It reflects our dual human need as humans to be both individuals and members of a supporting collective at the same time. As shakespeare said "the fault, dear brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves".

[charles_r51]

Galbally wrote: Scientology, all the fun of religion and science with none of the upsides of either, brilliant. I did read battlefield earth once and it is rubbish, though kinda fun in a kitsch way. But I never understood how people got from there to a religion, its not like people actually believe in Hobbits, or Vulcans (well outside of conventions anyway) so Hubbard got one over on the other sci-fi/fantasy writers there.

As for more established religions, I don't think that its really possible to seperate religion from humanity in general as it seems such a generalized thing. People have always had a need to explain the world around them and for as long as there has been people, religion has been the number one way. And despite the scientific revolution and 450 years of scientific investigation that has in general undermined much of the older worldview, it remains number one. I think the interesting question is why is religion fundamental to human belief systems? Whatever about religion describing the reality of either this world or the next, it certainly says a lot about human nature. It would apear to me that the great power of major religions is in that people need something and they are simple, easily defined and understood, appaently unchanging in an uncertain world (though this is not the actual reality) and they do undeniably speak to people's inner (what they may consider moral) selves, and have the benefit of millenia of a simple message being constantly repeated.

The philosophical weaknesses of all religions are that they are based on ideas or dogmas that are by their nature unprovable in any material sense, and therefore generally open to any one individual's or group's interpretation of them. Of course religious people would (in general) claim that there own particular religion is divine in inspiration and needs no proof, and even attempting to proove things is heretical (a convienent argument for someone trying to enforce an untestable idea). There is no room for argument with absolutist ideas about god or anything else as by their nature they brook no argument, which has of course been the cause of the never-ending clash between science and religion as science is open-ended, self-correcting and about arguing and proving things using numbers or evidence.

So I think religion is neither bad nor good in the abstract, though my prediliction is not religion (in itself, I admit, a bias). Though in practice religion has certainly has been the pretxt used for a lot of conflict, that is undeniable. But is also undeniably one of the prime drivers of all human civilization, imagine a western world where there had never been christianity, or an Israel without Judaism, Islamic civilization without well , Islam, in fact is there any major world civilization without a religion? China would be closest as Confucianism is a philosophy more than a religion, but given enough time any static philosophy becomes indistinguishable from religion.

The major "problem" (to use a perjorative) as I see it is that all groupings in human society need an "other" to define themselves, and this is the prime motivation for ideas such as organized warfare, which can't happen without some unifying idea behind it, whether it be religion, nationalism, political ideology, race, ethnicity etc etc. Organized war is also (whether people like it or not) a prime driver of civilization and organization, hardly an ideal, but a human reality unfortunatly, there would be no modern world without it. In the final analysis generalized religion is as morally neutral as all other great human ideas, which may sound absurd, but it isn't. It reflects our dual human need as humans to be both individuals and members of a supporting collective at the same time. As shakespeare said "the fault, dear brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves".


religion may be a necesssary fact of existance, but it would be so much better if it disappeared entirely. not that it didn''t have some good parts, but its biggest fault was the need for those who were leaders to get into and maintain their positions of power. had the christian church been what was intended and not as it became rhere would have far less warfare based on where a piece of ground was, or who had more money, or who wannted to be a cardinal and how much he was willing to pay for the position. the use of religion for political gain was is and always will be a misuse of what it should be. no religion has ever been developed that has not, at some point, been used to bring control to someone who doesnt want to becontrolled. and shakespeare was right the fault is ours for allowing it to happen. when man in general comes to realize this, maybe religion will be put in its place, preferably the trash can. i'm not against anyone having a particular belief, but not if means someone has to have it force-fed regardless of what one thinks. that has been happening for as long as history has been recorded and must needs be eliminated.:-4 :-4 :-4 :-4

[Galbally]

charles_r51 wrote: religion may be a necesssary fact of existance, but it would be so much better if it disappeared entirely. not that it didn''t have some good parts, but its biggest fault was the need for those who were leaders to get into and maintain their positions of power. had the christian church been what was intended and not as it became rhere would have far less warfare based on where a piece of ground was, or who had more money, or who wannted to be a cardinal and how much he was willing to pay for the position. the use of religion for political gain was is and always will be a misuse of what it should be. no religion has ever been developed that has not, at some point, been used to bring control to someone who doesnt want to becontrolled. and shakespeare was right the fault is ours for allowing it to happen. when man in general comes to realize this, maybe religion will be put in its place, preferably the trash can. i'm not against anyone having a particular belief, but not if means someone has to have it force-fed regardless of what one thinks. that has been happening for as long as history has been recorded and must needs be eliminated.:-4 :-4 :-4 :-4


Being someone who is scientifically trained I find it hard to find any real meaning in religion (though thats not a given for scientists), though as a Catholic I do by default have a moral sense that is I suppose Christian. I do have a belief (and thats all it is) in a "God" for use of a better word, though any being who is omnipitent and created the universe we live in seems to me to have to be something far more difficult for us to really comprehend than the paternalistic, personal, human obsessed god or gods of human cultures. My only argument for the existence of such a thing is the universe itself, as it would seem a shame that such an incredible place would exist as an accident, again its a belief nothing more. So that would make me a deist as opposed to an atheist. Thats somewhat abstract philosophic speculation, but its fair that I state my own view I suppose.

To get back to your point, in terms of organized religion, I understand where you are coming from but I don't fully agree, in that you can't get to the point we are at now without history and civilization and religion has been one of the main drivers of that. I suppose thats a kind of "you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs idea. Personally I am areligious, completely, though not an atheist. I do accept that religions are extremely particularist and divisive by nature, but then thats a human trait, to be particularist and devisive as well as being good and kind (which is ultimatley reflected in all our ideas and actions). When I quoted shakespeare what I meant was that our problems ultimatley lie within ourselves and exist without needing an external idea to express them, we are beings that are at once both loving and nuturing while being also conflictual and aggressive, getting rid of religion won't change that, all human ideas are just simple constructs that reflect the nature of life itself and the world that we live in, that world is beautiful and wonderful while also being utterly savage and hostile. We can no more wish that away than we can petition the gods to help us.

[Ted]

I am not entirely in disagreement with the above posts. Religon has been around as long as man has existed and it has been used to justify many horrible things done in the name of God.

I have had negative experiences with religion, at the hands of fundamentalism, but I've had more positive expriences than negative. In my experience it has been: open, non-controlling, intellectual ,, encouraging study and science, accepting of the validity of other faiths, mind expanding and yes comforting within a Christian community where in fact we o care for and about each other. I know this is not universal buth there are places wherre it is the norm.

It seems to me that the basic problem is the extremism at both ends of the scale and not with the middle to left of middle. I am not talking about any theological implications. That is an whole other topic.

Generally my experiences have been positive. and remain so as long as I avoid fundamentalism and extremis.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[charles_r51]

Galbally wrote: Being someone who is scientifically trained I find it hard to find any real meaning in religion (though thats not a given for scientists), though as a Catholic I do by default have a moral sense that is I suppose Christian. I do have a belief (and thats all it is) in a "God" for use of a better word, though any being who is omnipitent and created the universe we live in seems to me to have to be something far more difficult for us to really comprehend than the paternalistic, personal, human obsessed god or gods of human cultures. My only argument for the existence of such a thing is the universe itself, as it would seem a shame that such an incredible place would exist as an accident, again its a belief nothing more. So that would make me a deist as opposed to an atheist. Thats somewhat abstract philosophic speculation, but its fair that I state my own view I suppose.

To get back to your point, in terms of organized religion, I understand where you are coming from but I don't fully agree, in that you can't get to the point we are at now without history and civilization and religion has been one of the main drivers of that. I suppose thats a kind of "you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs idea. Personally I am areligious, completely, though not an atheist. I do accept that religions are extremely particularist and divisive by nature, but then thats a human trait, to be particularist and devisive as well as being good and kind (which is ultimatley reflected in all our ideas and actions). When I quoted shakespeare what I meant was that our problems ultimatley lie within ourselves and exist without needing an external idea to express them, we are beings that are at once both loving and nuturing while being also conflictual and aggressive, getting rid of religion won't change that, all human ideas are just simple constructs that reflect the nature of life itself and the world that we live in, that world is beautiful and wonderful while also being utterly savage and hostile. We can no more wish that away than we can petition the gods to help us.


i,too, have been trained in scientific areas, though not to degree that i would have liked not being the type to be able to fully grasp much within those areas i've followed.my fuller training is in political science and religion as a less formal area. having the knowledge of, and the methods used to obtain political power and the abuses it often entails, i cannot disagree with much of what you say. as for beleiving in a god, i do, but in such a way that i cannot accept what most organized religions present as truth and the way toi live. for me it is just excuses that justify human existance and does not reflect the true nature of man in general. science cvan be specific, but has limits which others try to get past, sometimes doing so, and sometimes failing, and even admitting to limitations, but never forcing any ideas on others without some basis upon which it can build. religion does just the opposite, forcing a belief and not offering anything gactual to support its claims, but requiring that its proof be accepted on faith. this is fine for those who are able to accept on such faith, but i require more than a command to accept something without some kind of definitive proof, not faith. we may both be of the few who need something more, and science, to me, offers more than mere words of hope and justification without some basis upon which to build a better understanding of ourselves and the world we live in.:-4 :-4 :-4

[charles_r51]

Ted wrote: I am not entirely in disagreement with the above posts. Religon has been around as long as man has existed and it has been used to justify many horrible things done in the name of God.

I have had negative experiences with religion, at the hands of fundamentalism, but I've had more positive expriences than negative. In my experience it has been: open, non-controlling, intellectual ,, encouraging study and science, accepting of the validity of other faiths, mind expanding and yes comforting within a Christian community where in fact we o care for and about each other. I know this is not universal buth there are places wherre it is the norm.

It seems to me that the basic problem is the extremism at both ends of the scale and not with the middle to left of middle. I am not talking about any theological implications. That is an whole other topic.

Generally my experiences have been positive. and remain so as long as I avoid fundamentalism and extremis.

many of my experiences in various churches have been positive, but many were nothing but mere attempts to control what i was to accept and deny. i've seen the results of extremism from up close and in classrooms as a course of study both in the areas of religion and politics both in practice and in the classroom. i have been active in religious discussions, and held political office. i have found that while both have some value within their own areas, when those areas get mingled, the worst of both occurs. extremisn, whether political or religious, will always try to get together with the other. whenever such happens, it is like pouring gasoline on a fire. the fire can only be quenched by force either in fact or in cause and effect forms. i know of no more destrutive force than the use of religious conviction to justify political aims. and i know of no better way to avoid it than to do whatever is necessary to prevent the two from coming together. history has shown the need for such seperation, and i personnaly believe that any and all nations should follow such as a means of going from ignorance to knowledge. not just for one person, but for self-preservation of the human species as a whole. sorry for the misplaced shalom, ted, but i didn't see it until i finished my diatribe.:-4 :-4

Shalom

Ted:-6
had to add a couple words.

[koan]

Galbally,

thanks for reviving this thread with such a lengthy and well thought out post. As usual.

I think the interesting question is why is religion fundamental to human belief systems? I absolutely agree. I have a few books that try to answer that, I'll see if I can find the passages.

charles,

religion may be a necesssary fact of existance, but it would be so much better if it disappeared entirely I'd easily replace the word "religion" with "politicians"...or "lawyers" except I don't believe they are necessary.

[charles_r51]

koan wrote: Galbally,

thanks for reviving this thread with such a lengthy and well thought out post. As usual.

I absolutely agree. I have a few books that try to answer that, I'll see if I can find the passages.

charles,

I'd easily replace the word "religion" with "politicians"...or "lawyers" except I don't believe they are necessary.


is there a difference between religion politicians and lawyers? they all hide their true interest by getting you all mixed up in junk verbiage designed to commit to nothing and still tell you what you want to hear, but never what you need to hear. they hate to be called on their falsehoods, but that's all they know how to speak with.:-4 :-4 :-4

[Lulu2]

Joseph Campbell said that the first function of a myth-system is to waken and maintain in the individual a sense of wonder and participation in the mystery of the universe.

The second function is to fill every particle and quarter of the current cosmological image with its measure of import.

A third function is the sociological one of validating and maintaining whatever moral system and manner of life-customs may be peculiar to the local culture.

Finally, there is the pedagogical one of conducting individuals in harmony through the passages of human life and the ultimate "passage of the dark gate."

[koan]

they are all means of cohesion. a method by which to bind people into organization. the intent is purportedly positive but it is still binding and often results in anger.

imo

[Lulu2]

And by the very nature of it.....exclusive. Which sets the "us" apart from "them," and leads to division, competition for resources and finally, obliteration of "the other."

[charles_r51]

Lulu2 wrote: Joseph Campbell said that the first function of a myth-system is to waken and maintain in the individual a sense of wonder and participation in the mystery of the universe.

The second function is to fill every particle and quarter of the current cosmological image with its measure of import.

A third function is the sociological one of validating and maintaining whatever moral system and manner of life-customs may be peculiar to the local culture.

Finally, there is the pedagogical one of conducting individuals in harmony through the passages of human life and the ultimate "passage of the dark gate."


wonderful sentiments, but try convincing religious leaders of that. explain the great ideas to some politicians. go to court and be ruled out of order by the judges and lawyers. the mystery in all this is simple. to keep people happy, keep telling lies and they won't think about anything good. people are too easily led, and even more easily kept ignorant of what is really going on.:-4 :-4 :-4

[charles_r51]

koan wrote: they are all means of cohesion. a method by which to bind people into organization. the intent is purportedly positive but it is still binding and often results in anger.

imo


in simple words, it's just control over everyone.:-4 :-4 :-4

[charles_r51]

Lulu2 wrote: And by the very nature of it.....exclusive. Which sets the "us" apart from "them," and leads to division, competition for resources and finally, obliteration of "the other."


controllers and controlled, eh?:-4 :-4 :-4

[koan]

Lulu2 wrote: And by the very nature of it.....exclusive. Which sets the "us" apart from "them," and leads to division, competition for resources and finally, obliteration of "the other."


is it the nature of the leviathan or the nature of the particles to wish to control its body?

the leviathan doesn't have a nature until it is created and it is the nature of those who create it that decides how it will act.

[charles_r51]

koan wrote: is it the nature of the leviathan or the nature of the particles to wish to control its body?

the leviathan doesn't have a nature until it is created and it is the nature of those who create it that decides how it will act.


and it is the ability of the creator to destroy the very thing it creates when it doesn't work as intended, that they may start anew.:-4 :-4 :-4

[Lulu2]

Reformations, splinter groups and new denominations there may be...but nothing realy changes when groups attempt to set themselves up as "the" elect.

[Adam Zapple]

Lulu2 wrote: And by the very nature of it.....exclusive. Which sets the "us" apart from "them," and leads to division, competition for resources and finally, obliteration of "the other."


Outside of some muslim sects, I don't know of any religion trying to obliterate the others. May I ask why division and competition is necessarily bad? Science, industry, politics, conservationists, etc...they all do it.

[Lulu2]

Now, now, Adam...I didn't use the word "obliterate." But the reason behind denominations is to set people APART from the others.

"WE do it like this!" "WE have the true word of God!" "WE are the chosen people." Etc. Jewish males are circumcised. Sikhs carry the knife, wear the bracelet, etc. Fundamentalists of several varieties demand that men wear beards and women dress in certain ways. It's all about "specialness" or being APART. Baptists DUNK and Methodists SPRINKLE and some ask "forgive us our debts" while others ask "forgive us our trespasses."

("Can't have people worshipping all over the place...our church needs the money and, besides...WE have the TRUE faith.")

I'm not sure that "competition" between religions is even possible. After all, they've each called themselves "the true path" for a zillion years and nobody's been given a celestial "pass/fail" grade.....

[Adam Zapple]

Lulu2 wrote: But the reason behind denominations is to set people APART from the others.


No it's not. It's to bring like minded people who share a certain view of scripture together. When it comes to religion, you are always looking for the dark cloud behind the silver lining.

[Lulu2]

Adam...see above. We were posting at the same time.

It's NOT a "dark side!" People take pride in being one sect or another...you know that...it's human nature.

You're very often assuming the worst about my attitudes and ideas, Adam.

[Ted]

The only problem with generalizations is that they do not paint an accurate picture of reality.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Lulu2]

Well...wasn't THAT a useful generalization? :-6

[Ted]

Depends on how you take it.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

In fact when it comes down to it one size does not fit all.

There's another generalization. Depends on how you see it.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[anastrophe]

All generalizations are faulty. Including this one.



I can't take credit for that one, but i have no recollection who said it first.

[Ted]

Lets take a look at some more generalizations.

What is wrong with science? It gave us: nuclear weapons, plastic explosives, gun powder, missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapns, nerve agents, chemical and biological weapons, poisoned gas, Mengele, fighter aircraft etc. These damned scientists are only interessted in the destruction of human life and opposition forces and in controlling the masses. Oh, hell what can you do? Everyone is out to get everyone else or at least their money. Gee science gave us doctors who are only after our money. I knew it. LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

PS I don't know what happened there because my glass is usually half full and not half empty. My true motives must be showing. LOL

[charles_r51]

Ted wrote: Lets take a look at some more generalizations.

What is wrong with science? It gave us: nuclear weapons, plastic explosives, gun powder, missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapns, nerve agents, chemical and biological weapons, poisoned gas, Mengele, fighter aircraft etc. These damned scientists are only interessted in the destruction of human life and opposition forces and in controlling the masses. Oh, hell what can you do? Everyone is out to get everyone else or at least their money. Gee science gave us doctors who are only after our money. I knew it. LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

PS I don't know what happened there because my glass is usually half full and not half empty. My true motives must be showing. LOL


they also gave us darwin, einstein, one for his knowledge of nature, the other for his theoris of relativity, and energy. most scientists are advancing the knowledge of the world as we know it, only a few, at the insistance of the military and weapons manufacturers are responsible for the weapons of mass destruction. don't deny the good many have done simply because a few gave us something bad.:-4 :-4

[charles_r51]

Lulu2 wrote: Reformations, splinter groups and new denominations there may be...but nothing realy changes when groups attempt to set themselves up as "the" elect.


and how many of those splinter groups set up themselves as the top rung and actually make it? very few. the problem is getting rid of the current ruling class but also having something better ready to fill the vacuum. until something better comes along, it won't happen.:-4 :-4 :-4

[charles_r51]

Adam Zapple wrote: Outside of some muslim sects, I don't know of any religion trying to obliterate the others. May I ask why division and competition is necessarily bad? Science, industry, politics, conservationists, etc...they all do it.


have you forgotten so much history? anyone who wants to be number one will always attempt to eliminate the competition. only outside interference prevents such destruction from occurring. that may be laws, military, competitive prices, and hundreds of other forms. but without interference of some form, society would be always in a state of chaos.:-4 :-4 :-4

[charles_r51]

Ted wrote: The only problem with generalizations is that they do not paint an accurate picture of reality.

Shalom

Ted:-6


neither does specificity. change prevents getting any kind of picture, except as a momentary flash.:-4 :-4

[Lulu2]

Short of just happily hijacking a thread, what's the purpose of these last posts? Perhaps you can explain how this relates to the original topic?

[anastrophe]

the entire topic is based on a false premise, so it's hard to hijack it, i'd say.

[koan]

koan wrote: In this poll it is decidedly voted by FG members that religion has failed to make the world a better place.

Why?

What are some potential explanations? What are some proposed solutions?


A false premise? A quick look shows otherwise.

This thread is based on the actual results of a poll done (linked) on this forum. The thread looks into explanations for the result of the poll. It's fairly straightforward, imo.

[Ted]

The point of my post on science was simply to show that if one wants to find something wrong with just about anything one can do so. When we are being so negative we forget that for most things there is a positive side. Yes there is a positive side to science just as there is to a religious faith.

The thread may be resonding to a poll but it is not a scientific poll nor is it reflective of society in general. Thus as a poll it has relatively little if any true value other then explaining what a very few people think.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[koan]

Ted wrote: The point of my post on science was simply to show that if one wants to find something wrong with just about anything one can do so. When we are being so negative we forget that for most things there is a positive side. Yes there is a positive side to science just as there is to a religious faith.

The thread may be resonding to a poll but it is not a scientific poll nor is it reflective of society in general. Thus as a poll it has relatively little if any true value other then explaining what a very few people think.

Shalom

Ted:-6


It is not a scientific poll, it is not reflective of society in general. Well said.

It is the "other than" part that I was interested in. A click on the poll will show how few people were involved in the voting. There was a majority of negative feelings regarding religion in society displayed by the members who voted.

Deal with it. :yh_tong2 (I have to...and I'm draggin' you with me)