Too Taboo To Chew! (Religion) (Page 2 of 16)

My thoughts on religion are that it is an outdated theory of how the world works. Man's first attempt to explain his surroundings. Unfortunately we got it drastically wrong. So drastically wrong infact that it stunted any kind of physical inquiry into the world for a thousand years. A loss too immense to imagine.

In my opinion it doesn't stand on a firm footing as a philosophy either. Sure there are some good bits in the books, but there are also some attrocious bits in there too. Besides, most of it isn't original and had been expressed before and by far more eloquent people.

Unlike some others, I do care about what people think. Especially when they become part of the public arena and begin to influence many peoples lives. I see religion doing this and not in a good way. I am thinking stem cell research, abortion and discrimination against women and homosexuals to name but a few. I see this as a worrying aspect of religion that is very rarely criticised, because of the unique position that religions hold in our societies.

z1rra: I do have to pull you up on one part of this statement. "None of the early organism designs were successful or intelligent compared to today's organisms."
All of the early organisms had to be successful or they wouldn't have survived and we wouldn't be here to discuss this.

Robcore: Regarding... "Thus, intelligent design rests somewhere between Creationism and Evolutionism"
The Dover courts in America ruled that Intelligent Design and Creationism are the same thing. I don't know if you have seen the Ken Miller talk on the case of I.D. but I would recommend it. Evolution Vs ID

I was an atheist for about a year, between age 18/19...really into the existentialists and whatnot at the time. I still don't get how that creates a bias concerning the way that nihilism is self defeating...
I can see that it might indicate a bias against atheists, but then I respect atheism as a philosophical position (but not as a spiritual position eg: being anti-God).

-Rob

paisley1:
I thought that I did make a statement of my beliefs. But I will clarify them for you.

I don't really like labels. I don't believe in a god although I am always open to evidence. As it stands the evidence for a god is either terrible or non-existant. So, I tend to view religion as a particularly virile meme.

As for my other beliefs, I don't really know. I tend to lean more towards the naturalistic and humanistic philosophies, but don't subscribe to a singular belief system. My philosophy now is different to what it was a few years ago and so pinning it down is a little difficult. As I experience new things that challenge my current beliefs, I try to re-evaluate and adjust them accordingly.

So, do you believe in the bible literally?

First...scorchio, you made a misinterpretation to my quote. I said compared to species living today. If the design had been perfect, there would be no need for evolution. Thus the design was not very intelligent. Of course with self-learning and self-improvement capabilities it has the potential to become perfect design given infinite amount of time.

And the Bible is bullshit. A lot of it is thrown away in modern day. You can interpret it in so many different ways. For example if you read it, it favors giving your daughter for rape to save a random male visitor at your household. There are countless other cruel episodes but they are dismissed today. If so much of the Bible is held irrelevant, why believe it. I don't have a problem following a widely accepted moral code without the Bible. I've been called evil and all other sorts of things by true believers and yet I find that I am way more tolerable and open-minded and happier than they are because I don't spend my time hating those, who do not have the same faith as I.

We can argue about philosophical aspects of religion but let's be honest: majority of people don't know and don't understand them. For them religion is going to the church/celebrating religious holidays/prayers and other things that make them feel better and okay with their god. So if Dawkins attacks this juvenile version of god and religion that doesn't make him wrong and narrow minded. Those very shallow beliefs prevail and have a tendency to support ignorance over reason and deny other people right to have different views. Additionally they are causing all sorts of negative effects like intolerance and holy wars, fundamentalist attacks and refusal of blood transfusion.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.  ~Seneca the Younger

So, regardless of a deep, philosophical thought in religions, they are just another instrument to control people...

I come from a catholic country. I used to believe in god when I was a child - it was easy, that's what I was told by parents. As I grew up I noticed all those inconsistencies in my religion so I started to doubt. Finally I rejected my religion and all other organized religions thinking they can't be all true but I still believed there is something bigger, some power, some cause for all that exists. After some time this belief also faded. Now I don't believe any god. I'm not saying that I'm sure god doesn't exist but it seems very unlikely. And I certainly don't subscribe to any known religion. Despite my atheism I don't kill, steal, rape and hurt people in any other way. I find it scary that some people restrain themselves from doing that only because they fear of hell.

And I would avoid inserting god in any gap in our knowledge, any mystery that universe holds. It is true that we still know very little about the world surrounding us and we don't even understand how our minds work. Just please don't say that "god did it" and decide that is the final answer.

If only that wouldn't happen, the world would indeed be a much better place!

No kitty that's a bad kitty!

paisley1:

You say that Jesus removed eternal condemnation. Did he? I thought that the concept of Hell wasn't introduced until the New Testament. You also said "Instead of going to jail (hell) Christ offers to pay and serve that time for you instead, (which has already been served and paid for on the cross) and all is asked is that you believe.". There it is in a nutshell. Believe in me and do as I command, without question, or spend eternity in agonising pain for the transgression of a draconian rule that an ancestor broke. That doesn't sound like the action of a just and merciful god.

On to your opinion of my beliefs. You are correct, I do pick and choose pieces from different philosophies. I use my moral intuitions to help me decide on whether I should adopt a specific point. But it is not all one way. If I find that my moral intuition is at fault then I try to correct that. Is it wrong of me to do that? I would argue that only by this process can I make myself a better individual. I would say that most religious people do the same thing. That would account for the wide range of beliefs held by the members of the same religions. Trying to get two Christians to agree on which parts of the bible are relevant is an exercise in futility.

Your method of validating the bible seems a little strange to me. I am new to the term Biblical Hermeneutics, but from a brief read on the subject it sounds a lot like using the Bible to prove the validity of the Bible. A bit like using a Hulk comic to prove the existance of the Hulk. You have assumed the Bible is true and everything else is built upon that? I will do a bit more reading on the subject, so I apologise if my analogy is incorrect.

This statement worried me a little, probably because it was given it's own paragraph. It seemed like you were using this as evidence to back up your position. "Yes, the Bible is the number 1 selling book in the worlds history, and Christianity is the largest religion on the planet." Just because it may be the best selling book in history doesn't have any bearing on whether it is true or not. Neither does the fact that it may be the largest religion.

I have always wondered how Christians wrestle with the contradiction of an all powerful and good god who allows so much evil. Perhaps you could share your views on this with me.

Take care.

It's not that I'm telling you what to think. I just think that putting god in every gap in our knowledge is kind of pointless. There always be things we don't know but giving up on trying to explain them would be rather sad. Treating "God did it" as a final and unquestionable answer is discouraging from researching the problem. You are free to think what you want but I'm very grateful that many people, many scientists didn't like the "God did it" answer and found better answers, pushing humanity forwards.

Ack, I hate to build on all the Paisley directed commentary, since the poor guy will be here all day replying if he chooses to remain engaged....but I have a few issues with what's been said too:

I don't believe in a God that changes its mind. That would imply that God was imperfect.

and if we don't choose to believe, we're still punished a la 'an eye for an eye'? Also, what would it matter to God whether we believe or not? I don't believe in such a tempermental God. Heck, I am not really phased by the fact that many are non-believers, so with all his perfection, why would God care? He's God!

Buddhism teaches Karma as a principle, yet ultimately aims at transcending Karma (via processes such as forgiveness[which they would simply call 'letting go']).

Again, with the God that changes its mind...

Christ didn't come to remove consequences from our actions. The penalties for sins are the consequences that flow from them. God is more understanding than a parent. When a child is being socialized, they act inappropriately, but they simply corrected, they are not given up on (they're forgiven for they know not what they do). Christ paid the penalty for our ignorance, because our ignorance had him put up on the cross. How could his crucifixion pay for the sins of a rapist in 1876? He taught about forgiveness, and being released from sin by the love of God, but that's completely different from his death. He was going around preaching forgiveness long before he was killed.

That would be a great metaphor, except it paints God as having two separate wills...one where he's seeking to punish us, and another where he's saying "hold on just a second, if I pay for this crime, they can go free". God doesn't benefit from holding us hostage for our sins. We hold ourselves hostage. Whether we continue to suffer or not, what does it matter to God? God has offered us freedom from suffering, and he's given us free will...so if we choose to harbour guilt and non-forgiveness, that's our business. God has no stake in the outcome, for god is God...never lacking; perfect.

Most eastern religions teach karma as a principle...though they advocate for a variety of paths, including Karma yoga (Doing Good works), Bhakti yoga (Loving devotion to God), and Jnana yoga (learning to discern between truth and falsehood). Respectively, these are the paths of action, love and mind....and as one advances on any of these paths, they eventually overlap and merge. Like christianity, there are formalities associated with the teachings, and though the formalities themselves often interfere with the realization of the truths of the teaching(like how some christians think it's more important to go to church than to be a forgiving person), the essence of the teaching, and of the realization of Divine Truth is still at the core.

It's the same with Christianity and attachment to impermanent things....it's better to store your treasures in heaven than to be attached to the ones we accumulate here on earth.
Also, in the highest teachings of Karma, forgiveness is at their core. We accumulate karma through judgement, so naturally, in transcending karma, forgiveness(or the surrendering of judgement) is necessary. Letting go of attachments to impermanent things is forgiveness (not just material things, but the impermanent state of ignorance that is experienced both by ourselves and by others). The Absolute(God) is not attached to the impermanent, thus, we ought to embrace God by doing so as well.

Buddhism is more hardcore, because it is about enlightenment, not about salvation. Salvation is essential if one aims to attain enlightenment(see the traditions in Eastern faiths re: having a guru/teacher for the tradition of needing someone to advocate for your advancement/salvation).

According to Buddha, we are born into circumstances of maximum karmic benefit. Reincarnation is not punishment. It is the result of infinite forgiveness and opportunity to advance. It's quite unlikely that you would ever regress back into an animal state It's also of great karmic awesomeness that you are a Christian right now too lol

-Rob

Thank you for your support paisley1 I feel much better now, especially because I don't live in Poland any more. I took that flight some time ago and my "suffering" is limited to occasional high blood pressure when I read news from Poland. Can I ask you why your father emigrated to Canada? Was it because communism? Somehow I feel it must be it.
I have to remind you that people don't have to adhere to Catholic Church with everything in Poland. It doesn't mean it was always like that, though, freedom of/from religion is relatively new achievement in the human history (or was it lost and found again?). And still, occasionally, there are people who would like to limit that freedom a little.

You still didn't convince me regarding Stalin's crimes. Yes - he was an atheist, yes - soviet communism was an atheistic regime. But his reasons for Ukrainian genocide wasn't to fight the religion (check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_famine). Of course Stalin persecuted religion and Orthodox Church but let me remind you: this was a regime, many people were repressed, especially if someone opposed regime. In addition fight against the church was a part of ideology, which stated that old ways the country was run need to be changed. What were the old ways? Feudal division of society, where church was in a position of power and privilege, closely cooperating with tsar. Stalin wanted to erase the competition, his followers eagerly targeted church as the symbol of the unfair feudal system. Please don't think I'm a communist just because I wrote that
On a side note: church in Poland was also persecuted by communist government. But overall situation in Poland was slightly better than in Soviet Union so the regime wasn't as bad. The churches existed and helped opposition a lot. Some priests however secretly cooperated with the regime. Nothing is black or white.

Regarding Richard Dawkins: I don't agree that his point of view, if adopted by majority of people, would lead to regime and genocide. I simply don't see how. Anyone here from atheistic (and non-regime) countries? I heard some Scandinavian countries are rather atheistic. Do they mass murder catholics in your countries? I don't think so. The point is not to erase religion but to prevent religious superstitions from affecting whole society (which consist of people of different views). Who is Dawkins criticizing? Creationists who want their beliefs to be treated like a science or fortune tellers or religious schools, which teach children not to think. Never did he say that religious people should be erased from planet Earth.

When I read your comments I have a strange feeling you have a direct phone line to your god. You seem to know exactly what is he like and what he thinks, what is his plan. I envy you, you must be sure of your place in heaven...

I think I read this quote on a t-shirt or something, but I love it: "I have no problems with God, it's his fan clubs I can't stand."

I don't know what I am. I guess I'd categorize myself as Christian, but only because Sweden is a Christian society. I believe there is a higher power of some sort, it may be God, it may be gods, it may be something else, I don't know. I just don't believe the bible is the book of God, more than it is a story book that has preserved history in a very good way.

Here are some things that I take to be Absolute Truth:

1. God is both manifest as the Totality and Allness of Creation and simultaneously unmanifest as the Godhead, the Infinite Potentiality and source or 'void-ness' prior to form.
2. God is infinite beyond time or depictions of space or locality, without beginning or end.
3. God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient.
4. God is the source and substrate of consciousness, awareness, knowingness, and sentience.
5. God is the sole source of the energy of life.
6. God is the source of evolution and Creation, which are one and the same.
7. God is the source and presence of peace, love, stillness, and beauty.
8. God is beyond all universes and materiality, yet is the source of All That Is.
9. God is the sole source of existence and the potentiality of beingness.
10. God is the ultimate context of which the universe and all existence is the content.
11. God is the a priori formless source of existence within all form.
12. God is not within the province of the provable or the intellect.
13. God is the source and essence of the subjective state of 'I-ness' called Enlightenment.
14. God is the radical subjectivity of Self-realization.
15. God is descriptively immanent and transcendent.
16. The human experience of the Presence of God** is the same in all ages, all cultures, and all localities.
17. The effect on human consciousness of the experience of the Presence of God is subjectively transformative and identical throughout human history.
18. The essence of God does not include human frailties, such as partiality, the desire to control, favouritism, duality, judgmentalism, wrath, righteous anger, resentment, limitation, arbitrariness, vanity, revenge, jealousy, retaliation, vulnerability, or locality.
19. The variabilities of the depictions of Divinity reflect the variabilities of human perception and the projections of the impediments of the ego and its positionalities.
20. The purity of the Presence of God is traditionally the essence of the ineffable quality of holiness and is the basis for the depictive term "sacred". That which is devoid of content is the equivalent of Innocence.
21. When the obstacles of human mentation, emotionality, and the ego's structures from which they are derived are transcended, the Self as God Immanent shines forth of its own accord, just as the sun shines forth when the clouds are removed.
22. God is the context and source of the karmic unity of all Creation, beyond all perceptual descriptions or limitations, such as time or space.
23. Truth is verifiable only by identity with it and not by knowing about it.
24. Every hair on your head is counted. Nothing escapes God.

**the authentic experience

-Rob