Why Religion Is For Big Infants

[Glaswegian]

It is generally agreed by rational individuals that Religion is rooted in fear, ignorance and self-deception. But Religion has a further source which, unlike the three just mentioned, is in no way reprehensible: namely, a powerful metaphysical need. This metaphysical need is a natural consequence of simply being alive in the world. The need is tied to a momentous awareness which comes to all thinking beings sooner or later concerning themselves and their situation, and it usually expresses itself in the form of a question - the most fundamental question: viz. Why is there such a thing as existence as opposed to complete nothingness? Why does the universe exist along with myself and all these other living things that I see around me? Instead of nothing, why is there anything at all?

Schopenhauer depicts this profound metaphysical awakening as follows:

'In endless space countless luminous spheres, round each of which some dozen smaller illuminated ones revolve, hot at the core and covered over with a hard cold crust; on this crust a mouldy film has produced living and knowing beings: this is empirical truth, the real, the world. Yet for a being who thinks, it is a precarious position to stand on one of those numberless spheres freely floating in boundless space, without knowing whence or whither, and to be only one of innumerable similar beings that throng, press, and toil, restlessly and rapidly arising and passing away in beginningless and endless time.'

Within every human being, then, there is an enduring need to obtain an answer to the mystery of existence. But what is tragic from the point of view of humanity is that throughout the ages Religion has hijacked and perverted this need by falsely claiming to know the answer to the metaphysical mystery. As Schopenhauer notes:

'The fundamental, secret and primal piece of astuteness of all priests, everywhere and at all times, is as follows. They have recognised and grasped the enormous strength and the ineradicability of the metaphysical need of man: then they pretend to possess the means of satisfying it, in that the solution to the great enigma has, by extraordinary channels, been directly communicated to them. Once they have persuaded men of the truth of this, they can lead and dominate them to their heart's content.'

Unfortunately, there are many individuals who find submission to Religion extremely seductive and they are only too ready to be dominated and mentally enslaved by it. One of the reasons why these individuals are happy to surrender control over their life and mind to Religion is because this allows them to escape the responsibility of having to think and act for themselves. It is evident that at some level within the religious believer the prospect of taking charge of his own life arouses a feeling of dread (angst). Thus, the religious believer's surrender of his personal autonomy to Religion is an attempt on his part to eliminate the occurrence of this unpleasant affect. However, making Religion (and God) the master and regulator of one's life has a detrimental effect on one's development as a human being for it results in psychological weakness and dependency (among other ills). This becomes clear if we look at how religious mental enslavement works in general. Viz...

The type of religious attitude fostered by all authoritarian religions is characterised by submission to an external authority or power. Under the direction of monotheistic creeds like Christianity and Islam, the sense of power and value which individuals feel in themselves are projected onto a Deity. The more steadily individuals remove power and value from themselves and accord them to the Deity the more impoverished they become: so much so, that their centre of gravity shifts from within themselves and they cease to be the active propellant in their own life. Thus, the general effect of authoritarian religion is to remove any self-autonomy which an individual might possess and replace it with a state of dependency. In other words, authoritarian religion seeks to turn its adherents into Big Infants, or as its velvet-tongued spokesmen put it - 'little children of God'.

As was noted above, the hijacking and perversion of the metaphysical need by Religion has been tragic for humanity historically. For instead of this need being allowed to express itself naturally - that is, as the fundamental driving force behind every attempt to understand the universe and increase human knowledge - it was channelled by Religion into myriad worthless endeavours (e.g., endless pilgrimages), preposterous theological speculation (e.g., 'How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?'), and some of the vilest conflicts on record (e.g., the Crusades)...among other lunacies. And this tragedy continues in the present day under new forms (e.g., the rise of the religious Right in America).

The sabotaging of the metaphysical need by Religion has been harmful not just for humanity but, paradoxically, for Religion itself. Thus, Carl Sagan is correct when he writes:

'How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My God is a little god, and I want him to stay that way". A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.'

References:

Sagan, C. (1994) Pale Blue Dot, New York: Random House

Schopenhauer, A. (1966) The World As Will And Representation (Vol. 2), New York: Dover

Schopenhauer, A. (1970) Essays And Aphorisms, Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics

[K.Snyder]

That's a rather ironic perception you've displayed to be honest.

We are the Universe we just perceive the Universe differently than other atoms, elements, etc...You can very well claim we're better than all else because of our chemical makeup and how individual organ systems in our bodies work together but I personally find Neutron Stars...Neutron stars are very hot and are supported against further collapse because of the Pauli exclusion principle. This principle states that no two neutrons (or any other fermionic particle) can occupy the same place and quantum state simultaneously. Neutron star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to tell a far more impressive story than a mere Human being!

Because we all perceive the Universe differently no one knows what the answer is. Henceforth, if no one knows the answer no one has any right what-so-ever to suggest "their" way of asking the questions is better and it's not at all respectable virtue to suggest "their" bodies are not bound by the law of physics. I don't know of one person that would honestly suggest every action/reaction in "their" bodies is entirely "voluntary" because it's quite simply not true or is it?

[Glaswegian]

K.Snyder;1296252 wrote: That's a rather ironic perception you've displayed to be honest.

We are the Universe we just perceive the Universe differently than other atoms, elements, etc...You can very well claim we're better than all else because of our chemical makeup and how individual organ systems in our bodies work together but I personally find Neutron Stars... to tell a far more impressive story than a mere Human being!

Because we all perceive the Universe differently no one knows what the answer is. Henceforth, if no one knows the answer no one has any right what-so-ever to suggest "their" way of asking the questions is better and it's not at all respectable virtue to suggest "their" bodies are not bound by the law of physics. I don't know of one person that would honestly suggest every action/reaction in "their" bodies is entirely "voluntary" because it's quite simply not true or is it?


I'm sorry, K.Snyder. I don't understand exactly what you are saying above. Could you please clarify a little further?

[spot]

Glaswegian;1296262 wrote: I'm sorry, K.Snyder. I don't understand exactly what you are saying above. Could you please clarify a little further?


I thought he expressed the idea rather well, myself.

[K.Snyder]

Glaswegian;1296262 wrote: I'm sorry, K.Snyder. I don't understand exactly what you are saying above. Could you please clarify a little further?


No one can know the answer if everyone asks the same question. In order to suggest you were to know the answer you'd have to successfully prove your being is made of all of the Universe as a whole. Seeing as how this is entirely impossible(As noted by my point that The Pauli exclusion principle is one of the most important principles in physics, mainly because the three types of particles from which ordinary matter is made—electrons, protons, and neutrons—are all subject to it; consequently, all material particles exhibit space-occupying behavior. Pauli exclusion principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For further reference if you're innately interested The Pauli exclusion principle underpins many of the characteristic properties of matter, from the large-scale stability of matter, to the existence of the periodic table of the elements. Pauli exclusion principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Because of this, everyone seeks the same answer and because of this everyone asks a different question to get it(Otherwise we'd have no use for the word "perception" which would also in turn define what would then be the achieved answer). Further our wish to find the answers is no different than all other matter, elements, atoms, etc...etc... because our bodies are comprised of the exact same material. As I'd said we just ask the question differently than say a tomato plant.

Because everything within the Universe is bound by the same laws we all, by default, aspire to seek the same answer that's fact #1.

The Pauli Exclusion Principle states nothing can occupy the same space that's fact #2.

Because of fact #2 we all(which includes every element/atom etc down to...(further we've yet to find anything smaller than a quark and scientists are working on the questions for that answer atm) must then ask different questions that's fact #3

Fact #4 is the proof that someone is way out of their league in suggesting they know the answer to a question that has of yet to be asked and that's fact #4(Among other equal facts and not entirely bound in sub-sequential order) Fact #4 by default, and only created in the suggestion to know the answer, is defined by the previous 3 facts.

If you were made up of every known existence in the Universe then you would know the answer because you'd have asked all of the questions essential in discovering it and that my friend is the LARGEST FACT OF ALL

Hope the weather's nice where you live because I'll soon be enjoying it here in Ohio I believe. I'll be playing soccer soon and will be working up my cardio work out essential in staying alive for that further bit of time enabling me to innately ask more questions.

[spot]

I'd have been hard pressed to say so much so relevantly in so brief a post K. It was a pleasure to read.

[K.Snyder]

I don't personally find religion to be important to me Glas, but I'll be damned if I'd insult people

[Glaswegian]

K.Snyder;1296451 wrote: No one can know the answer if everyone asks the same question. In order to suggest you were to know the answer you'd have to successfully prove your being is made of all of the Universe as a whole. Seeing as how this is entirely impossible(As noted by my point that For further reference if you're innately interested Because of this, everyone seeks the same answer and because of this everyone asks a different question to get it(Otherwise we'd have no use for the word "perception" which would also in turn define what would then be the achieved answer). Further our wish to find the answers is no different than all other matter, elements, atoms, etc...etc... because our bodies are comprised of the exact same material. As I'd said we just ask the question differently than say a tomato plant.

Because everything within the Universe is bound by the same laws we all, by default, aspire to seek the same answer that's fact #1.

The Pauli Exclusion Principle states nothing can occupy the same space that's fact #2.

Because of fact #2 we all(which includes every element/atom etc down to...(further we've yet to find anything smaller than a quark and scientists are working on the questions for that answer atm) must then ask different questions that's fact #3

Fact #4 is the proof that someone is way out of their league in suggesting they know the answer to a question that has of yet to be asked and that's fact #4(Among other equal facts and not entirely bound in sub-sequential order) Fact #4 by default, and only created in the suggestion to know the answer, is defined by the previous 3 facts.

If you were made up of every known existence in the Universe then you would know the answer because you'd have asked all of the questions essential in discovering it and that my friend is the LARGEST FACT OF ALL

Hope the weather's nice where you live because I'll soon be enjoying it here in Ohio I believe. I'll be playing soccer soon and will be working up my cardio work out essential in staying alive for that further bit of time enabling me to innately ask more questions.
I think your approach to understanding the question of the mystery of existence and our place in the universe is very interesting, K. The sciences of cosmology and particle physics have thrown much light on this question and, because both of these sciences are advancing very rapidly now, I'm sure we can expect a great deal more from them.

When you say that our bodies are comprised of the exact same material as is found scattered throughout the universe you are quite correct. Everything about us - every atom and particle which constitutes our being in its entirety - is literally of the same stuff as the universe. Therefore, given that we are beings in whom these atoms and particles are so highly organized and arranged that consciousness is possible, when we attempt to understand the mystery of the universe it is almost as if the universe was contemplating itself through us.

[K.Snyder]

Glaswegian;1296504 wrote: I think your approach to understanding the question of the mystery of existence and our place in the universe is very interesting, K. The sciences of cosmology and particle physics have thrown much light on this question and, because both of these sciences are advancing very rapidly now, I'm sure we can expect a great deal more from them.

When you say that our bodies are comprised of the exact same material as is found scattered throughout the universe you are quite correct. Everything about us - every atom and particle which constitutes our being in its entirety - is literally of the same stuff as the universe. Therefore, given that we are beings in whom these atoms and particles are so highly organized and arranged that consciousness is possible, when we attempt to understand the mystery of the universe it is almost as if the universe was contemplating itself through us.


Yes, you're correct but by the previous 3 facts this would then be defined as only having done so(posting they're wrong) at the expense of all other observations which leads me to the point that it's condescending. Which also in turn leads to my assertion that it was "rather ironic" "don't you think?" :wah: <----That's an alanis morissette song... :yh_wink

[K.Snyder]

Glaswegian;1296504 wrote: I think your approach to understanding the question of the mystery of existence and our place in the universe is very interesting, K.
Understanding "our" existence in the Universe is equal to not asking any questions(It's proven by an exact mathematical equation - all mathematics explains life btw). To not ask any questions is to assume to know the answer. We all ask different questions to seek the same answer(That answer can be God or no god ironically enough but both denotes the ultimate conclusion making them exactly the same goal - It's how we come to define "irony").

On that our existence is only a mystery if you do not ask questions fact #1A.

If we all ask different questions then we all must be in a different place(Relative to each other and defined by the same boundary*Without mentioning a boundary an imaginary one would serve fine in the same context of no God for Atheists and a God for "believers as mentioned by "goal" earlier) fact #2A(Reference Pauli Exclusion Principle)

If all existence in the Universe asks the exact same question this defines an exact meeting point of fact #2A ultimately obliterating the Pauli Exclusion Principle which would entail an absolute lack of need to ask any question ending in knowing everything fact #3A

The only conclusion of fact #1A,2A,and 3A is that we have no "place" in the Universe within the context in which anyone asks it. This is my philosophy and always has been. We have no place in something that is not separate from us. It's like suggesting we can possibly travel somewhere we've always been. I'd mentioned it in "Where are we going" thread...

[Glaswegian]

K.Snyder;1296459 wrote: I don't personally find religion to be important to me Glas, but I'll be damned if I'd insult people
There are some people whom it is necessary to insult, K. One such example is the former Archbishop of York, Dr David Hope. Here is what that holy clown gushed in The Times newspaper in 1997:

'The feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary is so significant because before all else, it is about the abundant and amazing grace of God as set before us in the vocation and response of Mary herself. He looked upon the lowliness of the Blessed Virgin Mary and chose her to be the mother of His only Son.'

Whenever I come across Christian claptrap like this I have to ask myself: Is it possible that a grown man can spout such nonsense without feeling deeply ashamed? Is it possible that he can be so infantile and pathetic as to believe it? Is it possible that the fear of death (and life) is so overwhelming in him that he needs to believe it?

Yes, K. There are some people who deserve to be insulted. Indeed, one has a moral duty to insult them. How else will they grow up?

[K.Snyder]

What's entirely more interesting, I think, is to suggest we can create points of "worth" in any given spectrum so long as we define it's borders. The "borders" in this context would be the exact same aspiration to know the answer defined as the "goal" in knowing if God exists or not. That answer is unknown, wholeheartedly, simply because no one has asked the correct questions(They're unable to, it's why people have heavy hearts - It denotes they care defined by it).

If we were to create a hypothetical answer then we could observe the questions ultimately defining "worth" by every context. This answer/goal will be "society".

Society is the conclusion.

One can then choose an obligation to either care for society or to not care for society ending in the ability to see one's "place" in society.

I've observed myself through the conclusion of society and have chosen to ask questions pertaining to the medical field myself.

[K.Snyder]

Glaswegian;1296514 wrote: There are some people whom it is necessary to insult, K. One such example is the former Archbishop of York, Dr David Hope. Here is what that holy clown gushed in The Times newspaper in 1997:

'The feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary is so significant because before all else, it is about the abundant and amazing grace of God as set before us in the vocation and response of Mary herself. He looked upon the lowliness of the Blessed Virgin Mary and chose her to be the mother of His only Son.'

Whenever I come across Christian claptrap like this I have to ask myself: Is it possible that a grown man can spout such nonsense without feeling deeply ashamed? Is it possible that he can be so infantile and pathetic as to believe it? Is it possible that the fear of death (and life) is so overwhelming in him that he needs to believe it?

Yes, K. There are some people who deserve to be insulted. Indeed, one has a moral duty to insult them. How else will they grow up?


It's religion asking the questions though not him. Because we all take up different space we all interpret this passage differently(It's possible to get the same answer in a subset of questions but there will always be the element of time that differentiates them - If the time is in sync then what you get is the definition of "group" which for the sake of understanding we'll call this group "Humans" and we can then continue to compare them with "elephants" -- Ever seen an elephant weep?)

My underlining point is that you can insult religion all you want...It can't be helped by the mere fact one claims a different denomination if any and if this poses a problem then those on the other end are equally as guilty(I'm suggesting some religious people can be just as critical in regards to atheists)

It's entirely why people get angry with Muslims any time they see someone with a turban commit a crime.

By all means question his faith but you can't ridicule his questions lest you ridicule your own because they seek the same answer.

[Glaswegian]

K.Snyder;1296511 wrote: Understanding "our" existence in the Universe is equal to not asking any questions(It's proven by an exact mathematical equation - all mathematics explains life btw). To not ask any questions is to assume to know the answer. We all ask different questions to seek the same answer(That answer can be God or no god ironically enough but both denotes the ultimate conclusion making them exactly the same goal - It's how we come to define "irony").

On that our existence is only a mystery if you do not ask questions fact #1A.

If we all ask different questions then we all must be in a different place(Relative to each other and defined by the same boundary*Without mentioning a boundary an imaginary one would serve fine in the same context of no God for Atheists and a God for "believers as mentioned by "goal" earlier) fact #2A(Reference Pauli Exclusion Principle)

If all existence in the Universe asks the exact same question this defines an exact meeting point of fact #2A ultimately obliterating the Pauli Exclusion Principle which would entail an absolute lack of need to ask any question ending in knowing everything fact #3A

The only conclusion of fact #1A,2A,and 3A is that we have no "place" in the Universe within the context in which anyone asks it. This is my philosophy and always has been. We have no place in something that is not separate from us. It's like suggesting we can possibly travel somewhere we've always been. I'd mentioned it in "Where are we going" thread...
I find some of the things you are saying here quite abstruse, K. Let me give them some thought and I'll get back to you.

[K.Snyder]

Glaswegian;1296522 wrote: I find some of the things you are saying here quite abstruse, K. Let me give them some thought and I'll get back to you.


Coming to the conclusion of whether God exists or not is no different than an atheist and a religious practitioner asking the same question because both answers are observed.

[K.Snyder]

What's the conclusion of this entire thread based off of the assertions having been presented?

(I know the answer:yh_wink :driving: :wah: :-6)

[K.Snyder]

K.Snyder;1296524 wrote: What's the conclusion of this entire thread based off of the assertions having been presented?

(I know the answer:yh_wink :driving: :wah: :-6)


The answer is that everyone defines their own answers by choosing their own questions. I'd used quotation marks around "voluntary" earlier which I couldn't help but stumble upon information that is very relative to my question "...or is it?" prior. Voluntary and involuntary muscle would be the jist of it.

Seeing as how we've brought one side of the argument into the thread I can't help but bring up one in favor of religion for the thread because I'd like to know how you personally feel about "Holism" Glaswegian. Holism (from ὅλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, entire, total) is the idea that all the properties of a given system (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by its component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave. Holism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Opposite of holism is... Reductionism can either mean (a) an approach to understand the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents. Reductionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThey're both no doubt relevant. It was Sir William Osler that believed a "patient's recovery was more dependent on what went on in his or her mind" in regards to said patients.

Medicine

Holism appears in psychosomatic medicine. In the 1970s the holistic approach was considered one possible way to conceptualize psychosomatic phenomena. Instead of charting one-way causal links from psyche to soma, or vice-versa, it aimed at a systemic model, where multiple biological, psychological and social factors were seen as interlinked. Other, alternative approaches at that time were psychosomatic and somatopsychic approaches, which concentrated on causal links only from psyche to soma, or from soma to psyche, respectively. At present it is commonplace in psychosomatic medicine to state that psyche and soma cannot really be separated for practical or theoretical purposes. A disturbance on any level - somatic, psychic, or social - will radiate to all the other levels, too. In this sense, psychosomatic thinking is similar to the biopsychosocial model of medicine.

Alternative medicine practitioners adopt a holistic approach to healing. Holism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Psychosomatic medicine is an interdisciplinary medical field studying the relationships of social, psychological, and behavioral factors on bodily processes and well-being in humans and animals. The influence that the mind has over physical processes including the manifestations of physical disabilities that are based on intellectual infirmities, rather than actual injuries or physical limitations, are manifest in phrases such as the power of suggestion, the use of "positive thinking" and concepts like "mind over matter".

The academic forebear of the modern field of behavioral medicine and a part of the practice of consultation-liaison psychiatry. Psychosomatic medicine integrates interdisciplinary evaluation and management involving diverse specialties including psychiatry, psychology, neurology, surgery, allergy, dermatology and psychoneuroimmunology. Clinical situations where mental processes act as a major factor affecting medical outcomes are areas where psychosomatic medicine has competence. Psychosomatic medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Biofeedback is the process of becoming aware of various physiological functions using instruments that provide information on the activity of those same systems, with a goal of being able to manipulate them at will. Processes that can be controlled include brainwaves, muscle tone, skin conductance, heart rate and pain perception. Biofeedback may be used to improve health or performance, and the physiological changes often occur in conjunction with changes to thoughts, emotions, and behavior. Eventually, these changes can be maintained without the use of extra equipment.

Biofeedback has been found effective for the treatment of headaches and migraines. Biofeedback - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The implications of all of this information has to be worth a read for everyone...How could it not?...

[Glaswegian]

K.Snyder;1296537 wrote: I'd like to know how you personally feel about "Holism" Glaswegian.
I think 'Holism' has its uses and misuses, K. For example, certain phenomena are best understood from a holistic perspective. Take the case of a primitive tribesman who is cursed by a witchdoctor and told that he will die in three days time at cockcrow. Three days later the tribesman obliges the witchdoctor and dies on cue. In order to make sense of the tribesman's death a wide range of factors over and above biological ones must be taken into account. For example, the tribesman's ignorance, gullibility and superstitious belief in the power of witchdoctors; and the influence of a culture which promotes and sustains such idiocy.

Regarding the misuses of 'Holism': One of the dangers of holistic thinking is that it can lead us into error. For example, a cloud is nothing more than the collection of individual water molecules which comprise it. This is how it is objectively. However, when viewed in a certain light the cloud can appear as a gigantic 'face' floating high above us. The 'face' is an emergent property of the collection of water molecules, something that is not really there, something which only exists in the eye of the beholder, a perceptual illusion - in short, mere fancy. Likewise, the Church is nothing more than the collection of individual Christians who comprise it. This is how it is objectively. However, when viewed in a certain light the Church can appear as the 'Body of Christ'. The 'Body of Christ' is an emergent property of the collection of Christians, something that is not really there, something which only exists in the eye of the beholder, a perceptual illusion - in short, mere fancy.

[K.Snyder]

Glaswegian;1296578 wrote: I think 'Holism' has its uses and misuses, K. For example, certain phenomena are best understood from a holistic perspective. Take the case of a primitive tribesman who is cursed by a witchdoctor and told that he will die in three days time at cockcrow. Three days later the tribesman obliges the witchdoctor and dies on cue. In order to make sense of the tribesman's death a wide range of factors over and above biological ones must be taken into account. For example, the tribesman's ignorance, gullibility and superstitious belief in the power of witchdoctors; and the influence of a culture which promotes and sustains such idiocy.

Regarding the misuses of 'Holism': One of the dangers of holistic thinking is that it can lead us into error. For example, a cloud is nothing more than the collection of individual water molecules which comprise it. This is how it is objectively. However, when viewed in a certain light the cloud can appear as a gigantic 'face' floating high above us. The 'face' is an emergent property of the collection of water molecules, something that is not really there, something which only exists in the eye of the beholder, a perceptual illusion - in short, mere fancy. Likewise, the Church is nothing more than the collection of individual Christians who comprise it. This is how it is objectively. However, when viewed in a certain light the Church can appear as the 'Body of Christ'. The 'Body of Christ' is an emergent property of the collection of Christians, something that is not really there, something which only exists in the eye of the beholder, a perceptual illusion - in short, mere fancy.


That's the point Glas religion is real to those that practice it and like I said until everything in the Universe can be explained no one knows the real answer. Until that point we all perceive everything differently and so what we serve to do is ask different questions. Even every human being asks different questions(much like fingerprints) just that our questions, as humans collective, are much more similar than an elephant's questions or a tomato plants questions.

By you being the slightest bit concerned with "our" "place" in the Universe denotes that very question as being religious. Therefore anytime someone feels the need to make an effort in even mentioning "religion" they illustrate their particular denomination of religious practice defined by the exact same question you're both asking.

A true "atheist" never speaks, writes, or minds the word "religion".

It goes back to what I said about people creating prejudices for Muslims simply because they'd observed a person wearing a turban commit a crime. It's like hating black people because "you" were robbed by one, it doesn't fit. Not in a divine righteous code it doesn't

[Glaswegian]

K.Snyder;1296711 wrote: By you being the slightest bit concerned with "our" "place" in the Universe denotes that very question as being religious.
No, it doesn't K. There is nothing inherently religious about that question at all. As I stated in the OP, the question concerning our place in the universe is the expression of a metaphysical need which is felt by all human beings as a natural consequence of being alive in the world. Since it is a question which arises in religious and non-religious persons alike, Religion has no monopoly over it. To construe this question as religious in character and, therefore, as requiring a supernatural answer or response is to fall into Religion's trap. Religion has merely hijacked this question and pretended to be in exclusive possession of the answer to it: and there has been no shortage of dupes throughout the ages who have fallen for this pretence.

[spot]

Glaswegian;1297349 wrote: To construe this question as religious in character and, therefore, as requiring a supernatural answer or response is to fall into Religion's trap. Religion has merely hijacked this question and pretended to be in exclusive possession of the answer to it: and there has been no shortage of dupes throughout the ages who have fallen for this pretence.


Your perpetual problem is that you equate this subset of delusional fanatics with Christianity, where in actual fact they're a small outsider group. By all means condemn them for their many failings. The large proportion of Christians have little in common with them and frankly wish them to the devil since they cause so many problems and make so much noise. No Christian worth his salt would pretend to be in exclusive possession of any answer. You have a tame Aunt Sally you keep throwing your abuse at. If you tried listening for a while and discussing alternative perceptions you'd perhaps integrate productively rather than rant.

[gmc]

spot;1297351 wrote: Your perpetual problem is that you equate this subset of delusional fanatics with Christianity, where in actual fact they're a small outsider group. By all means condemn them for their many failings. The large proportion of Christians have little in common with them and frankly wish them to the devil since they cause so many problems and make so much noise. No Christian worth his salt would pretend to be in exclusive possession of any answer. You have a tame Aunt Sally you keep throwing your abuse at. If you tried listening for a while and discussing alternative perceptions you'd perhaps integrate productively rather than rant.


One thing that is consistent about all monotheistic religions is their insistence that there version of the answer and all else is wrong. There are many christians who are not prepared to accept dissent from the established views of the christian church and even those who would start all the religious wars up again It's impossible for a christian to believe in their religion and also leave room for their acceptance that they may be wrong. By it's nature monotheistic religion is intolerant, if people do not conform they are ejected.

Kirk disputes Pope's view of the past - Scotsman.com News

In a statement issued last week by The Vatican, Pope Benedict, who will visit Scotland in September, described the 16th-century Reformation, which split the two faiths, as a "great rupture" that had led to religious intolerance.




Holyrood to play host to Her Majesty and the Pope - Scotsman.com News

And church leaders made it clear that he intends to use the visit to remind Britain of its Christian and Catholic roots and bring the message of the Gospel.

This will include tackling issues such as the right to end life and Margo MacDonald's bill in the Scottish Parliament, the breakdown of marriage and the clash with the Labour UK government over its equality bill which the Pope has condemned for discriminating against believers.

But Cardinal Keith O'Brien, head of the church in Scotland, and Archbishop Vincent Nichols, head of the church in England, made it clear that there would be no apology for child abuse by priests, arguing that the problem was dealt with firmly in Britain and was not the same issue it was in Ireland.




It's not just small outsider groups that claim to have exclusive possession of the answer. religious people have stopped asking the question and accept what they are told. By itself that is not a problem but they are hell bent (no pun intended) on dragging us all back in to their fold-you cannot have people questioning the authority of the church nor it seems calling it to account for it's sins.

[Ahso!]

K.Snyder;1296711 wrote: That's the point Glas religion is real to those that practice it and like I said until everything in the Universe can be explained no one knows the real answer. Until that point we all perceive everything differently and so what we serve to do is ask different questions. Even every human being asks different questions(much like fingerprints) just that our questions, as humans collective, are much more similar than an elephant's questions or a tomato plants questions.This may be accurate, but only because people have been raised to try to believe in the unbelievable. You can't make this case otherwise. That leaves us in a wilderness, and its unnecessary. Its time for this civilization to move beyond the myth of religion and onto the facts of evolution and natural selection.

That said, I also disagree with the tone expressed in the OP. But that is the consequence of a bitter and unrepentant religious right that chooses to fight with fire. There is a certain attitude in many who are atheist to fight back in kind. Its my opinion that that is less helpful, but it is what it is.

[Glaswegian]

spot;1297351 wrote: Your perpetual problem is that you equate this subset of delusional fanatics with Christianity, where in actual fact they're a small outsider group. By all means condemn them for their many failings. The large proportion of Christians have little in common with them and frankly wish them to the devil since they cause so many problems and make so much noise.
I am interested to know what it is about your beliefs as a Christian, spot, that differentiates you from the delusional Christian fanatics you refer to? Let me provide you with a small selection of Christian beliefs which have been set out objectively by Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion. Here they are:

In the time of the ancestors, a man was born to a virgin mother with no biological father being involved.

The same fatherless man called out to a friend called Lazarus, who had been dead long enough to stink, and Lazarus promptly came back to life.

The fatherless man himself came alive after being dead and buried three days.

Forty days later, the fatherless man went up to the top of a hill and then disappeared bodily into the sky.

If you murmur thoughts privately in your head, the fatherless man, and his "father" (who is also himself) will hear your thoughts and may act upon them. He is simultaneously able to hear the thoughts of everybody else in the world.

If you do something bad, or something good, the same fatherless man sees all, even if nobody else does. You may be rewarded or punished accordingly, including after your death.

The fatherless man's virgin mother never died but was "assumed" bodily into heaven.

Bread and wine, if blessed by a priest (who must have testicles), "become" the body and blood of the fatherless man.

~o0o~


The above set of beliefs is held not just by delusional Christian fanatics but by many mainstream Christians as well. So let me ask you, spot: Do you, as a Christian, hold any of the above beliefs?

[spot]

gmc;1297389 wrote: One thing that is consistent about all monotheistic religions is their insistence that there version of the answer and all else is wrong.
If you won't listen to accurate statements by practicing Christians I'm not sure what's left that could be described as discussion. You have an extreme hobbyhorse and you're determined to ride it rather than explore what actually happens in the real world. It turns you and Glaswegian into write-only posters on this particular topic. I'd regard that as a waste of your time and effort but if it rings your bells then I don't suppose you can be prevented, if it's not here it'd only be somewhere else.

Oh... your list of tests, Glaswegian. No, not a single one of them.

[beowulf]

Glaswegian;1297443 wrote: Let me provide you with a small selection of Christian beliefs which have been set out objectively by Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion. Here they are:

In the time of the ancestors, a man was born to a virgin mother with no biological father being involved.

The same fatherless man called out to a friend called Lazarus, who had been dead long enough to stink, and Lazarus promptly came back to life.

The fatherless man himself came alive after being dead and buried three days.

Forty days later, the fatherless man went up to the top of a hill and then disappeared bodily into the sky.

If you murmur thoughts privately in your head, the fatherless man, and his "father" (who is also himself) will hear your thoughts and may act upon them. He is simultaneously able to hear the thoughts of everybody else in the world.

If you do something bad, or something good, the same fatherless man sees all, even if nobody else does. You may be rewarded or punished accordingly, including after your death.

The fatherless man's virgin mother never died but was "assumed" bodily into heaven.

Bread and wine, if blessed by a priest (who must have testicles), "become" the body and blood of the fatherless man.

~o0o~





i like that.....im going to have to 'borrow' that :sneaky:

[gmc]

spot;1297467 wrote: If you won't listen to accurate statements by practicing Christians I'm not sure what's left that could be described as discussion. You have an extreme hobbyhorse and you're determined to ride it rather than explore what actually happens in the real world. It turns you and Glaswegian into write-only posters on this particular topic. I'd regard that as a waste of your time and effort but if it rings your bells then I don't suppose you can be prevented, if it's not here it'd only be somewhere else.

Oh... your list of tests, Glaswegian. No, not a single one of them.


So as a christian do you believe there is only one god?

As a christian do you believe that other faiths have got it totally wrong?

As a christian do you believe that the path to salvation is through Jesus Christ and no other?

As a christian do you believe you have a sacred duty to bring others to christ?

Where in that belief system is there scope to leave non believers alone?

What actually happen in the real world spot is that practising Christians believe that their version is the only correct one and in many cases are prepared to shove their religion down everybody else's throats.

In the real world there are practising christians that are prepared to ostracise members of their own family if they make the mistake of marrying outside their own particular sect.

In the real world spot there are practising christians who don't want their children to mix with those of other christian sects.

In the real world there are practising Christians who are prepared to terrorise children rather than have them attend a mixed faith school in case they become contaminated.

In the real world spot there are practising Christians who believe a woman should not be able to choose if and when she becomes pregnant and think they have a right to dictate to those who do not share their beliefs.

In the real world spot there are practising Christians who believe that anything challenging religious belief should be banned from being taught and only approved thoughts allowed.

In the real; world spot there are practising christians who have lost the capacity to think for themselves so that when they are told homosexuality is unnatural they just believe without investigating to decide for themselves. If they were told it was perfectly OK they would probably just follow blindly as well.

In the real world there are practising christians who think it acceptable to blow up doctors and terrorise workers in clinics because their bible tells them so.

Quite frankly spot the smug sanctimonious statements of practising christians impress me not at all. I look at what is happening in the real world and wonder where all the "true" christians are. Because quite frankly they seem more interested in fighting and arguing about what is a "true" christian belief and pointing out each other failing than they are in practising christianity-at leasts those bits that talked about tolerance and understanding.

There is no such thing as a tolerant Christian or muslim because the one thing they cannot abide is dissent or indeed anything that might make them question their beliefs.

[spot]

gmc;1297496 wrote: So as a christian do you believe there is only one god?

As a christian do you believe that other faiths have got it totally wrong?

As a christian do you believe that the path to salvation is through Jesus Christ and no other?

As a christian do you believe you have a sacred duty to bring others to christ?

Where in that belief system is there scope to leave non believers alone?

What actually happen in the real world spot is that practising Christians believe that their version is the only correct one and in many cases are prepared to shove their religion down everybody else's throats.Like I said, you're talking but not listening.

Taking the questions in order, No No No No and No.

[gmc]

spot;1297502 wrote: Like I said, you're talking but not listening.

Taking the questions in order, No No No No and No.


Sadly, in the real world, a lot of christians would say yes to all of those. Clearly you are an exceptional human being even if you are daft enough to believe in religion

So how can you be a christian and not also believe there is only god and no others? Unless you are one of those godless Unitarians who are all going to hell for not following the true path.

You are right about one thing, I have met so many religious bigots I find it hard not to separate the two words. Religion is probably one of the most destructive forces in the world today and no it's not just that people use religion for their own ends. By it's very nature it calls for blind obedience and contempt for those who are not of exactly the same creed. I grew up with sectarianism and have absolutely no time for it at all.

[Bevdee]

I've always found it fascinating when people decide who's right and who's wrong and going to hell. Hell must be full of those who did not follow someone's "right" path. SRO. Cause everyone thinks they're right and there's always a difference of opinion. But the power to condemn? Oh there's power in the blood of the lamb!!

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1297418 wrote: Its time for this civilization to move beyond the myth of religion and onto the facts of evolution and natural selection.
That would certainly be a move in the right direction, Ahso! Incidentally, as an aficionado of evolution you may be aware that the biologist J. B. S. Haldane once said that if God exists then he has an inordinate fondness for creating beetles. Apparently there are around 350,000 known species of beetles. But God has an even greater fondness for creating viruses. Biologists estimate that there are at least ten strains of virus for every species of animal on earth. Perhaps it's a good thing that God doesn't exist after all. I mean, if he did then he would be a really nasty piece of work, wouldn't he?

[Glaswegian]

spot;1297467 wrote: Oh... your list of tests, Glaswegian. No, not a single one of them.
Then what exactly are your beliefs as a Christian, spot? Surely they cannot be so ridiculous in nature that you are ashamed to express them?

[K.Snyder]

Glaswegian;1297349 wrote: No, it doesn't K. There is nothing inherently religious about that question at all. As I stated in the OP, the question concerning our place in the universe is the expression of a metaphysical need which is felt by all human beings as a natural consequence of being alive in the world. Since it is a question which arises in religious and non-religious persons alike, Religion has no monopoly over it. To construe this question as religious in character and, therefore, as requiring a supernatural answer or response is to fall into Religion's trap. Religion has merely hijacked this question and pretended to be in exclusive possession of the answer to it: and there has been no shortage of dupes throughout the ages who have fallen for this pretence.


You misread the context in which I'd used "religious". In order for these statements to rain true you'd have to name all religions and use them because it's not proper to categorize all religions as being the same. When you do this that's when you define your belief against all religions collectively as being a religious position having been taken.

Religions do not conspire together otherwise we would have absolutely no use for the word "religion" because the practice would be obvious.

Chritianty for instance is a group of individuals that believe in the question "Where is our place in the Universe?". Anytime one asks the same question they either define themselves of being apart of that group or they define themselves as being apart of another group by default. It can't be helped once it's asked. It's a religious question and when one doesn't agree with in how others have asked it they define their own denomination with the only difference being in how they'd asked the exact same question.

Seeking to understand something that has of yet to be observed defines those as believing in a divine power otherwise they'd never had the mind to ask. When asked not in behalf of any known religion then one is invented by simply asking.

[K.Snyder]

Ahso!;1297418 wrote: This may be accurate, but only because people have been raised to try to believe in the unbelievable. You can't make this case otherwise. That leaves us in a wilderness, and its unnecessary. Its time for this civilization to move beyond the myth of religion and onto the facts of evolution and natural selection.

That said, I also disagree with the tone expressed in the OP. But that is the consequence of a bitter and unrepentant religious right that chooses to fight with fire. There is a certain attitude in many who are atheist to fight back in kind. Its my opinion that that is less helpful, but it is what it is.


You're of the mind that everyone had parents that claimed to be religious and eventually have grown up to be religious and that's not a case at all. What's very ironic is that your case can only be made if this were true:yh_laugh.

My mother was raised catholic and I went to catholic schools from age 7-9 and also went to church very regularly from birth to about 12...I don't want anything to do with indoctrinated religion. I do know of My God which is truth and divine righteousness but I don't need to go to church to care about people. With this in mind how are you to suggest individuals do not share the same beliefs as I with the only difference being they wish to go to church as opposed to being "forced" by their "religion"? It's preposterous to automatically assume this.

"...because people have been raised to try to believe in the unbelievable."As I've said "You can't make this case" because you need everyone to grow up being religious from religious "teachings" and the logic of that argument is obviously blown to bits and peaces.

[Amythest]

People don't have to be indroctrinated as children through family.



We are surrounded by religion .

It infiltrates our schools, churches are everywhere, people constantly talk about it.

If parents don't go to church or have a bible in the home almost every person who resides in any community will be shown a Bible by someone. As soon as people find out you don't go to church ( especially in rural communities) they try to get you to. The religious are always zealous when it comes to spreading the word.



Then there's Entertainment. Religious references and programs are everywhere.



The written word is not truth. Language is not truth! The only truth lay in archeology, in 3 dimensional findings. Solid objects.

I would challenge any religious person here to put aside the Bible and search for archeological truth. Google the origions of christ, Roman history, pagan, egyptian, Greek, druidic. Open your minds and seek out the writings of scholars who have seen and studied ancient texts and archeology. Comparitive study reveals the truth not ONE book.

[koan]

It is my firm belief that all people are religious. Even the atheists.

Most people are big infants.

Ernest Becker simplified humanity into one motive with two parts. All people share the exact same motive for every single thing they do, say and think:

To feel like a primary object in a world of meaning.

The only difference between any of us, and it's a big difference, is what satisfies that motive. What is here being called "religious" is the assignment of meaning to the world as given by a specific group of individuals. What I am suggesting is that any assignment of meaning is religious and, like it or not, everyone has assigned some sort of meaning to the world around them. It doesn't matter if you say the words "I don't believe there is any meaning to our lives," you have still made assignments, you just don't think of it that way. One example would be: money is power

[K.Snyder]

Amythest;1297590 wrote: People don't have to be indroctrinated as children through family.



We are surrounded by religion .

It infiltrates our schools, churches are everywhere, people constantly talk about it.

If parents don't go to church or have a bible in the home almost every person who resides in any community will be shown a Bible by someone. As soon as people find out you don't go to church ( especially in rural communities) they try to get you to. The religious are always zealous when it comes to spreading the word.



Then there's Entertainment. Religious references and programs are everywhere.



The written word is not truth. Language is not truth! The only truth lay in archeology, in 3 dimensional findings. Solid objects.

I would challenge any religious person here to put aside the Bible and search for archeological truth. Google the origions of christ, Roman history, pagan, egyptian, Greek, druidic. Open your minds and seek out the writings of scholars who have seen and studied ancient texts and archeology. Comparitive study reveals the truth not ONE book. Actually I've set aside the bible and recognize quite extensively the truths behind evolution.

On that let's continue shall we?...

*Christians perspective*

We are surrounded by atheists.

It infiltrates our schools, atheists are everywhere, people constantly fail to talk about it.

If parents go to church or don't have a bible in the home almost every person who resides in any community will be ridiculed by someone. As soon as people find out you go to church ( especially in inner-city communities) they try to get you to stop. The atheists are always zealous when it comes to not spreading the word.



Then there's Entertainment. Atheist references and programs are everywhere.



The unwritten word is not truth. Lack of language is not truth!

What we're genuinely after here is a conclusion to ones implications having been presented but sadly this cannot be dissected until people are ready to bring about a particular instance in which they can prove religion as a whole is to blame aside from what one may feel is the result of a single denomination.

[Amythest]

K.Snyder;1297593 wrote: Actually I've set aside the bible and recognize quite extensively the truths behind evolution.

On that let's continue shall we?...

*Christians perspective*

We are surrounded by atheists.

It infiltrates our schools, atheists are everywhere, people constantly fail to talk about it.

If parents go to church or don't have a bible in the home almost every person who resides in any community will be ridiculed by someone. As soon as people find out you go to church ( especially in inner-city communities) they try to get you to stop. The atheists are always zealous when it comes to not spreading the word.



Then there's Entertainment. Atheist references and programs are everywhere.



The unwritten word is not truth. Lack of language is not truth!

What we're genuinely after here is a conclusion to ones implications having been presented but sadly this cannot be dissected until people are ready to bring about a particular instance in which they can prove religion as a whole is to blame aside from what one may feel is the result of a single denomination.


YOU did not read my post properly. Or rise to the challenge. Resorting to this sort of thing kindof matches this!

:yh_love

:yh_wink

:yh_kiss

:yh_wink

:yh_kiss



BTW. I'm not an atheist. So what made you assume that? A challenge way too steep?:yh_rotfl

[K.Snyder]

koan;1297592 wrote: It is my firm belief that all people are religious. Even the atheists.

Most people are big infants.

Ernest Becker simplified humanity into one motive with two parts. All people share the exact same motive for every single thing they do, say and think:

To feel like a primary object in a world of meaning.

The only difference between any of us, and it's a big difference, is what satisfies that motive. What is here being called "religious" is the assignment of meaning to the world as given by a specific group of individuals. Actually this is what I'd had in mind in linking K.Snyder;1297563 wrote: Well I'd recently thought about Erik Erikson's stages of development and while I believe that one needs to understand one particular stage in order to excel in the other I can't help but wonder if we are all products of our childhood.

Along these lines I believe that these stages are suggested to be quite beneficial towards ourselves as children but also I believe that we can only see the suggestion once and from that point forward is left up to us to decide which route we wish to take...

Much in the same it could be said that children with the inability to grasp these understandings on a one step bases(Without the need for a second suggestion) then ultimately their intellect serves to either increase or decrease their ability to remain moral as defined by the suggestion. Opposite to having a divinely moral suggestion brought into the light is one with absolutely detrimental effects on ones ability to guess as to whether the next step will serve to increase their likelihood of remaining and even growing to be much more respectable person. All of it defining my belief that one is equally as intelligent as they are moral. Intelligence defines morality and vica versa.

It also argues that the absolute most crucial periods in a child's life is within the first 2 years...

The complexity is relevant in determining the divine bias between what's acceptable to society and what's not acceptable. Which also illustrates my observation that the majority of society define morality because quite frankly they cannot understand that which is more complex than themselves.

The point being that emotion serves to be the first response to the initial suggestion ultimately leaving one's intelligence to define their morality by virtue of impulse based off of the emotions having been displayed in the initial response. This is argued very extensively by Erik Erikson as aforementioned.http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/12975 ... -more.html

with the idea that "perception" is entirely what one chooses based off of their intellectual ability to define "worth" relative to a given boundary. It just so happens that this boundary is the equivalent to whether or not God exists and because we all are defined by the Pauli Exclusion Principle none of us can share space proving that not only is every one of our "perspectives" rightly different and because no one of us is "all" we innately ask different questions in order to achieve the exact same answer. The difference being the time in which some of us ask a more relative question which illustrates our intellectual level that displays our moral fortitude.

Merging the two threads into one single question would be more appropriate in my mind!

Why do we all aspire to ask the same question?

[K.Snyder]

Amythest;1297595 wrote: YOU did not read my post properly. Or rise to the challenge. Resorting to this sort of thing kindof matches this!

:yh_love

:yh_wink

:yh_kiss

:yh_wink

:yh_kiss



BTW. I'm not an atheist. So what made you assume that? A challenge way too steep?:yh_rotfl


The post insulted the intelligence of religious people by assuming they hadn't known the truth. Anything else is really irrelevant. :yh_wink

Know what's funny? What made you come to the conclusion I was biased toward any sentiment other than my own and that I wasn't merely playing devil's advocate? :wah:

[Ahso!]

koan;1297592 wrote: It is my firm belief that all people are religious. Even the atheists.

Most people are big infants.

Ernest Becker simplified humanity into one motive with two parts. All people share the exact same motive for every single thing they do, say and think:

To feel like a primary object in a world of meaning.

The only difference between any of us, and it's a big difference, is what satisfies that motive. What is here being called "religious" is the assignment of meaning to the world as given by a specific group of individuals. What I am suggesting is that any assignment of meaning is religious and, like it or not, everyone has assigned some sort of meaning to the world around them. It doesn't matter if you say the words "I don't believe there is any meaning to our lives," you have still made assignments, you just don't think of it that way. One example would be: money is powerYou of course have the right to apply the word religion to how any individual assigns meaning to life, but I don't assign religion the same as you. To me religion involves rituals, rites of passage and ceremonies. I guess you can say that those requirements are met even in a secular sense through such events as sharing mealtime, birthday celebrations, education and marriage ceremonies. Then there is usually some sort of divine purpose like passage to immortality or becoming rich financially.

I promise you - I no longer buy into any of it. The only thing I see in life is survival and reproduction. Thats all we do, everything else is a myth.

Perhaps what I call myth, you call religion.

As for what Becker said, " All people share the exact same motive for every single thing they do, say and think:

To feel like a primary object in a world of meaning."

Becker may very well be correct in that emotions, because they are an adaptation, would enhance both survival and reproduction.

[Amythest]

K.Snyder;1297600 wrote: The post insulted the intelligence of religious people by assuming they hadn't known the truth. Anything else is really irrelevant. :yh_wink

Know what's funny? What made you come to the conclusion I was biased toward any sentiment other than my own and that I wasn't merely playing devil's advocate? :wah:


It didn't insult anyones intelligence. In fact it offered an intellectual and educational challenge. Mature people would know that.

Incidentally you are the one who made fun of my comments regarding religious exposure. Being that different sects, Roman Catholicism and Xtianity, house the majority of people. An atheist who went about there pre adult life the way you described would be an absolute fool or extremely brave. What you wrote rarely if ever happens. They would be totally ostrisized, margianalized, ganged up on and silenced by the religious majority. Most young atheists keep it very quiet, and don't preach there beleifs due to peer pressure and being outcast.

I guess you were just mocking. That is why I replied the way i did.

So what is the truth? do you know it? Can you seperate symbolism and myth from truth?



Have you ever looked into Astro Theology or Mythology from before Christ and noticed some parallels?



Have you ever thought about Monotheism and our ego?

A lot of what we do is ego based and that is where we run into trouble.IMHO

[spot]

Glaswegian;1297553 wrote: what exactly are your beliefs as a Christian, spot? Surely they cannot be so ridiculous in nature that you are ashamed to express them?I note the "exactly". You seem to be asking for a lot of work on my part, which is an uphill notion given that you know full well you're going to pour whatever sarcasm you can muster on the result. As in "ridiculous" and "ashamed". They're not words suitable to discussion, they're further attempts to belittle and fight.

gmc said earlier that "there is no such thing as a tolerant Christian or muslim because the one thing they cannot abide is dissent or indeed anything that might make them question their beliefs". He says it, I think, because he wants it to be true. What I've contributed to the thread makes it visibly untrue but it's a part of his world view and perhaps he'd hate to let go of it. If it were modified to "some Christians and some Muslims can't abide..." then we could make progress, I'd agree that it's true, he'd have a validated position to develop and we could all get somewhere. We'd differ on the proportion since I think it's small and he thinks it's large, we could settle eventually on "significant proportion". We'd find a common ground where both our statements of opinion would agree with each other's. That would be progress rather than mere confrontation. As it is, I can't agree with his statement because I know it to be untrue.

You asked "what exactly are your beliefs as a Christian", and gmc suggested I was "daft enough to believe in religion", those again include an inaccurate assumption. Belief is an outrage to common sense. Belief should be made illegal. I abhor belief. There are, of course, many definitions and shades of meaning to the word but the common core to them is that an interpretation of the world is encapsulated in a statement and people are invited to accept that interpretation as the truth. The whole process is aberrant. The truth is the thing that's being interpreted, it's not the interpretation. I have as few beliefs as possible. I live in the world, others live in the same world, I form interpretations on the basis of my experience. My experience of the world is real, my interpretation is necessarily flawed, inadequate and not necessarily the same as yours. It's certainly no better than yours.

Once upon a time, long long ago and far far away, there was a bunch of people who swapped some stories which ended up in the New Testament. Do we agree so far? A few hundred years before them there was another bunch of people who swapped some stories which ended up in the Old Testament but that's more interesting historically than inspiring from a religious standpoint - the Old Testament is politics and layered myths but it's another tale entirely. Now, for all I care and for all I know the stories were on a par with Brer Rabbit as far as historical accuracy goes, they could be early examples of Mediterranean novel-writing, I have no way of knowing and no interest either way. What interests me is the content of the stories since they describe a dissident seller of snake-oil who tried to change the world.

Now, interestingly enough, the world this maybe-fictional character lived in is similar to the world I live in as far as the way it reacts to being lived in. Experimentally, if I do this or do that I find the world reacts in a way that the stories resonate with. They form a basis of exploration. Given my historical setting, having access to this particular set of stories and experimenting with their underlying philosophy (which is centred on faith, not on belief) I continually discover that the places previous Christians have gone are places I can also find. The language they used to describe their findings gives me a technical vocabulary with which to explore further. Everything to do with Christianity is related to experience, everything to do with belief is a snare and a distraction from the path. Belief is anathema.

Perhaps that sketch gives an indication why I have no reason to think Christianity is the sole route to salvation. I agree that some of the story-tellers thought it was but then, why would any sensible person think they knew any hard and fast answers? Anti-Christians are for ever insisting that "you have to believe in biblical inerrancy to be a Christian" but that's their hang-up, it's certainly not mine. They're stories.

I was at a weekend workshop at the Archway Central Hall once. The then-Secretary of the Methodist Church GB, Brian Beck, asked a singularly pertinent question. How much of the baggage can you throw away and still have Christianity? I still don't know the answer but take it from me, it includes a great deal of baggage. It certainly includes everything the pair of you have listed so far.

Koan's "any assignment of meaning is religious and, like it or not, everyone has assigned some sort of meaning to the world around them" fits perfectly with the way I find the world because I can adopt that vocabulary very easily. I'll finish where I started - discussion needs words with a meaning that both sides agree to use otherwise we'll just be throwing black is white at each other, whether we're swapping experiences or exploring philosophy. Top of the list of words used as both black and white is, of course, god. Again it's the anti-Christians who demand that it means X and can't mean anything else. X quite often includes omnipotent, for example. It ain't so, folks, that's another bit of baggage. Christianity can get along as easily without God as it can without a historical Jesus if suitable definitions can't be agreed.

[koan]

Ahso!;1297614 wrote: You of course have the right to apply the word religion to how any individual assigns meaning to life, but I don't assign religion the same as you. To me religion involves rituals, rites of passage and ceremonies. I guess you can say that those requirements are met even in a secular sense through such events as sharing mealtime, birthday celebrations, education and marriage ceremonies. Then there is usually some sort of divine purpose like passage to immortality or becoming rich financially.

I promise you - I no longer buy into any of it. The only thing I see in life is survival and reproduction. Thats all we do, everything else is a myth.

Perhaps what I call myth, you call religion.

As for what Becker said, " All people share the exact same motive for every single thing they do, say and think:

To feel like a primary object in a world of meaning."

Becker may very well be correct in that emotions, because they are an adaptation, would enhance both survival and reproduction.
survival and reproduction do not explain the symbolic world the mind inhabits. If you've managed to succeed at not thinking, you might have abolished religion in your life.

[Ahso!]

koan;1297626 wrote: survival and reproduction do not explain the symbolic world the mind inhabits. If you've managed to succeed at not thinking, you might have abolished religion in your life.A person can only be sure of what goes on in their own mind. Should I read what you've written to mean the mind has no choice but to interpret symbolism? Or is it that the mind creates its own symbolism automatically?

I can't say I've abolished religion in my life because I exist along side others others who are religious.

We can't go as far as to say removing my coat when I enter the house is a religious ritual, can we? If not, then its possible to be non-religious, isn't it?

[Amythest]

koan;1297626 wrote: survival and reproduction do not explain the symbolic world the mind inhabits. If you've managed to succeed at not thinking, you might have abolished religion in your life.


Yea there is an unseen world we don't understand. You want to call it symbolic. I call it metaphysical.The metaphysical spawns some symbolism.

It is a world of energy. How do people comprehend this energy? This life force?

In ancient times i would venture to think this mystery world was terrifying to most people, so they had to identify it with something they know.

Some cultures used Human form, others used animal, others used a combination.

However giving all of this the religion stamp isn't quite proper.

Spiritualliy is less defined and most people can come to a peacefull acceptance when spritual beleifs are espoused.Spirituality has mystery to it and people revel in that mystery. It is less egocentric.

Religion, on the other hand, is quite specific, rigid, egocentric and causes division because of that.

[koan]

Ahso!;1297627 wrote: A person can only be sure of what goes on in their own mind. Should I read what you've written to mean the mind has no choice but to interpret symbolism? Or is it that the mind creates its own symbolism automatically?

I can't say I've abolished religion in my life because I exist along side others others who are religious.

We can't go as far as to say removing my coat when I enter the house is a religious ritual, can we? If not, then its possible to be non-religious, isn't it?
Yes. You should read what I've written to mean that the mind has no choice but to interpret symbolism and to create its own symbolism from what it interprets. We are born into a world that overwhelms us and we take what we are provided with symbolically as we grow up to help us find security in a harshly threatening external reality. It's all bullshit. It's symbolic. It's make believe. Nothing you believe to be true is anything but interpretation of the symbolism you've accepted.

No. It's not possible to be non-religious.

Amythest;1297628 wrote: Yea there is an unseen world we don't understand. You want to call it symbolic. I call it metaphysical.The metaphysical spawns some symbolism.

It is a world of energy. How do people comprehend this energy? This life force?

In ancient times i would venture to think this mystery world was terrifying to most people, so they had to identify it with something they know.

Some cultures used Human form, others used animal, others used a combination.

However giving all of this the religion stamp isn't quite proper.

Spiritualliy is less defined and most people can come to a peacefull acceptance when spritual beleifs are espoused.Spirituality has mystery to it and people revel in that mystery. It is less egocentric.

Religion, on the other hand, is quite specific, rigid, egocentric and causes division because of that.
I am a "metaphysician" and it's no different than being Christian or Atheist or any other title that makes a person feel comfortable with their self description. We don't even know who we are unless we have other people to reflect a reality back at us. Self esteem is a useless phrase unless someone else reinforces it back at you. You need me. I need you. Why? Because otherwise we don't exist. And, it's all religious.

[Glaswegian]

koan;1297592 wrote: It is my firm belief that all people are religious. Even the atheists.
To say that atheists are religious is simply an abuse of language, koan. Next you'll be telling me that religious believers are atheists.

It is important to use words in the way that they are most generally understood. Words do not mean whatever we choose to make them mean. The definitions of words that we operate with must be those which are commonly agreed upon otherwise discussion is impossible. When words are used in a way which merely tickles our fancy then their meanings become highly idiosyncratic; they can become stretched beyond all recognition - even into their exact opposites, as you have done with them - and anything can mean anything.

When meanings are assigned to words indifferently and without any thought for precision this soon results in unintelligibility. The misuse of the accepted meanings of words and their dilution to the point of senselessness have been highlighted by the American physicist, Steven Weinberg, in his book Dreams Of A Final Theory. Here he is talking about some people's use of the word 'God':

'Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that "God is the ultimate" or "God is our better nature" or "God is the universe". Of course, like any other word, the word "God" can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that "God is energy", then you can find God in a lump of coal.'

[gmc]

posted by koan

It is my firm belief that all people are religious. Even the atheists.




With all due respect that is nonsense.

from the oxford english dictionary

religion

• noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

— ORIGIN originally in the sense "life under monastic vows": from Latin religio ‘obligation, reverence’.


religious

• adjective 1 of, concerned with, or believing in a religion. 2 treated or regarded with care and devotion appropriate to worship.

• noun (pl. same) a person bound by monastic vows.

— DERIVATIVES religiously adverb religiousness noun.


If you said all people try to find meaning or purpose in life then i would be inclined to agree with you. But that atheists just have a different belief system and it's just a different kind of religion is total nonsense. It's a theory often put forward by the religious along with the other one that an atheist just hasn't found their way to god yet and if they read the bible and were daft enough to accept it as being the word of god they would become religious.

posted by koan

I am a "metaphysician" and it's no different than being Christian or Atheist or any other title that makes a person feel comfortable with their self description.




metaphysics

• plural noun usu. treated as sing. 1 philosophy concerned with abstract concepts such as the nature of existence or of truth and knowledge. 2 informal abstract talk; mere theory.

— DERIVATIVES metaphysician noun.

— ORIGIN from Greek ta meta ta phusika ‘the things after the Physics’, referring to the sequence of Aristotle’s works.


It's a heck of lot different. You are not looking to some authority to interpret the word of some super being who created you and tell you how to behave and what to think and believe. Monotheistic Religions offer a definitive answer to life the universe and everything and require belief without question. You are child of god and believe without question, give yourself to the lord, open yourself to the lord it's all the same thing unquestioning belief in god. To really believe in god you have to suspend reason. When the good lord says jump you just ask how high, when a cult leader says jump his followers ask the same question.

posted by spot

gmc said earlier that "there is no such thing as a tolerant Christian or muslim because the one thing they cannot abide is dissent or indeed anything that might make them question their beliefs". He says it, I think, because he wants it to be true. What I've contributed to the thread makes it visibly untrue but it's a part of his world view and perhaps he'd hate to let go of it. If it were modified to "some Christians and some Muslims can't abide..." then we could make progress, I'd agree that it's true, he'd have a validated position to develop and we could all get somewhere. We'd differ on the proportion since I think it's small and he thinks it's large, we could settle eventually on "significant proportion". We'd find a common ground where both our statements of opinion would agree with each other's. That would be progress rather than mere confrontation. As it is, I can't agree with his statement because I know it to be untrue.


OK I'll concede you have a valid point, not all christians and muslims are like that. But I would out it to you that it is inherent in a religion that claims to have the "truth" that sooner or later it will try and impose it's will on others, if persuasion does not work then force will be used. Both Muslims and christians very quickly started fighting amongst themselves over who was right and turned on each other as well-all fighting for the same god apparently since both sides believe there is one so the other side can't be worshipping a different one.

Yes you can put a good case that both religions teach tolerance and understanding and practitioner can make make accurate statements about the true meaning of Christianity or islam but in the real world if you have a belief system where there is only one god and one way to salvation sooner or later you turn on those who do not share that belief, either out of a sense of concern for their immortal soul or frustration that they don't agree with you. It has happened time and time again and it's happening now.

Look at the states, a liberal, secular broadly tolerant society in regard to race or creed (more or less anyway) yet the religious right see that tolerance as a sign of the moral breakdown of society and want to sort it by putting god at the heart of the government. What they will do to those who worship the wrong god or none at all you can guess by some of their actions. Given half a chance you are looking at the creation of a a religious dictatorship. It's an almost inevitable outcome of monotheistic religion in the real world because when you submit to god you leave yourself wide open to doing things in god's name because your religious leaders tell you that's what you should do.

Tell me spot how do you stop it happening? because it seem ion the real world you are not supposed to be critical of religion for fear of offending someone's deeply held religious beliefs. We have a pope coming here who helped cover up some of the worst child abuse in history, any other organisation would be in the dock over it and there would be outrage over his visit. But I'm just being anti-catholic aren't I, never mind the validity of the comment. It seems the pontiff can't admit to being fallible.

[Glaswegian]

Amythest;1297616 wrote: Have you ever thought about Monotheism and our ego?
Yes, Amythest, I have. I've thought about monotheism and the egos of those who embrace this kind of belief system quite a bit. And let me tell you, it's a very painful and disturbing exercise given what an inflated, overweening ego the monotheistic believer has.

Take the Christian as an example of what I mean, and consider what he actually believes. The Christian believes that he is in direct communication with the Creator of the Universe. He believes that his own life is of such importance that the Creator takes a personal interest in his thoughts, feelings and actions. He believes that the Creator not only takes a personal interest in his thoughts, feelings and actions but that the Creator also loves him, and loves him unceasingly. He believes that by employing the right prayers, incantations and body language he can exert an influence over the Creator's dealings with him. He believes that the Creator has granted him possession of the Absolute Truth via a holy book, and that anyone who dares to challenge him on this matter will burn in hell forever while he himself basks in everlasting bliss...

Yes, Amythest, one must never be taken in by the Christian's 'humility' (or that of any other monotheist). For behind this false humility lurks the most monumental egotism, arrogance and conceit.