I'm sorry I betrayed you guys for starting a religion topic but: In the time of the ancient Greeks, they thought that there were many Gods and they all had a different role in creating the Earth. I'm sure the entire world now believes that isn't true. What if our modern belief system is like the Greeks? I'm not saying it is, especially since I"m Catholic and Jesus came and spread the message of God (though Jews believe that Jesus wasn't the massia). Maybe in a few hundred, maybe even a few thousand years from now, somthing will happen that will disprove our modern religious belief system and everybody will start believing in somthing else. All-in-all, I'm not saying I don't believe in God and I don't believe our modern belief system is correct, but what if it will be disproved like we disproved the Greeks?
Maybe in a few hundred, maybe even a few thousand years from now, somthing will happen that will disprove our modern religious belief system
I'm sorry I betrayed you guys for starting a religion topic but: In the time of the ancient Greeks, they thought that there were many Gods and they all had a different role in creating the Earth. I'm sure the entire world now believes that isn't true.
There is no proof for no religion. So it cannot be disproven.The word religion already implies that proof is irrelevant.
In 1000 year people will laugh just as hard as at Jesus as at Zeus.
Just theoretically...What if there was a group of Christians who took the Bible as their starting point, and didn't just cherry pick from the Bible what they like?
Wait a sec.... pianistimo hasn't posted in this topic yet??
I hope it does not take that long as i would like to be around when it happens.
Now I am no Bible scholar... how many contradictions are there in the Bible?
The problem with Christianity compared to the greek gods is that the greek gods are just as human as humans. They argue, they make mistakes, they fight each other, they cheat, they lie, etc etc. Just as normal humans.
If the Christian god whipes out a town we have usually nice Christians trying to justify this atricities.
In my opinion every christian has to accept that, because the bible is written by humans, it is imperfect, it may be inspired by "god" but nothing more.
If you ask me then 'Sapere aude' is an anti-religious idea. Religion is about dogma, non-thinking, following authority, etc. These things are universal to all religions. The moment a belief systems lacks these, eg some forms of buddhism, it is no longer a religion.
Einstein doesn't agree with rc on the merit of religion.
Prometheus - I have a beef with how you argue. [...] when I come across anything you post I'm disinclined to even bother reading. I'm probably not the only one.
It's not hard to find an example of what I'm talking about, let's take this one:I pick up the dictionary and find, in addition to the definition you refer to of organized religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith. A broader definition that doesn't necessarily refer to organized religion. You could save a lot of time typing up arguements if you would take a moment to understand what somebody is talking about, because you're not referring to religion the same way as the opinions you refute... Your points are not on issue, they effectively become non-points.
ANYHOWI stand by my conviction that religion does a lot of good for society. You say religion does only bad or neutral (enabling people who are already good to continue to do so is neutral).
Thinking back to earlier periods of society, when survival of the community was a more immediate concern,
However I'm convinced that a kind of spirituality (the other definition of relgion, what Einstein called 'cosmic religion') is essential for human progess, if not existence.
I have no idea what you mean by this, care to elaborate?
I am not interested in this. If people take offence because I don't honey my words or they somehow feel intimidated then that is their decision. It can't be helped.
I don't have an ego at all. Either it's their stupidity or mine stupidity.
The dictionary only talks about words I provided info about research done by an antropologist. The whole function of religion in society is to control people and keep a community together.Anyway, you only mentioned one definition of religion. I wasn't even talking about that one. I was talking about this one: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
I was talking about modern society. But if for the survival of the community this community decided to whipe out another one is that positive? That's how it used to go back in our tribal days.
Anyway, you are pointing out exactly what I think is negative. Quite ironic that you think that what I call 'positive' is 'neutral' and that what I think is 'negative' 'positive'.
How so? I gave two examples which showed that Einstein was less of a scientist because of his religious deistic delusion.It is kind of important, don't you think?
It is just my guess that you and Einstein don't seem to agree on this.
Oh I forgot to elaborate on what I meant by ego. Everybody has an ego, you'd have to be a robot to not have this self-aware aspect of humanity called the ego. Which I believe is the source of many misconceptions and senseless arguements. My first reaction in the face of conflict is usually ego-protection, manifest in the form of refuting whatever they may be saying. I try to look beyond this, as it can blind me in the case that I'm in the wrong (often this happens after I've told them to *** off ).How it happens is that the persons ego develops the self-image of an intellectual. Self images tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies. It's a chicken/egg thing, which came first the intelligence or the image of the intellectual? I'm inclined to think the image comes first, that the valuing of intellect precedes the acquisition of knowledge. That doesn't really matter.So, the intellect learns over time that he tends to be right. That is, he wins far more arguements than he loses, whether that's due to knowing the subjects intimately or being quick with words doesn't matter. What matters is that the intellectual begins to assume that he's generally right, which is where the danger lies. This assumption is a subconscious thing, and without knowing it a person can often fall into the habit of argument in order to be right.I have two friends who used to do this all the time, it was painful to watch. The intellectual equivalence of two apes beating their chests trying to intimidate each other. There's a telltale sign of when somebody is arguing out of ego, in order to 'win' (they're not really winning anything) - if they fleet from topic to topic without ever reaching any resolution. The topics obviously aren't important, all that remains is the arguement. The highest goal of any debate is agreement. Agreeing to disagree is a compromise. Compromise is lame, but at least it's respectful.I believe it's also the source of such wanton disregard for what another person is trying to say, due to the assumption of general rightness is implied that others are typically wrong, or of lesser intellect. Most disagreements are semantic, two people arguing are actually in agreement, but because they're describing it in different words they think the other is not understanding. Because words can have different meanings, it's important not to take them at face value, rather to try and understand the meaning behind the words. This can take some effort, some people are more eloquent in expressing their ideas, others are harder to understand.Another friend used to be very sloppy with words. Everybody thought he was a moron because of the nonsense that came out of his mouth, hahah. Boy did he ever get furious over that! He told me many times how angry it made him that people wouldn't work harder to make sense of what he was saying, but that was shifting the responsibility. The man who expects the world to adapt to understand his mangling of language rather than improving his skill with words is destined for frustration. This is what I mean by debate as an art. Conversation as well.edit: this friend eventually got over his pride and is now excellent with words, an eloquent speaker who only a fool would consider stupid.Something else I've learned is that just about everybody is brilliant, unless someone is brain damaged, all our minds are incredible. I distinctly remember when a friend one day began telling me his opinions on society... I'd always considered him a dimwit (because HE considered himself to be slow, that's what he projected), so I was shocked to discover the depth of his opinions on society. They weren't the notions of the dimwit I thought he was, they were well thought out, it was a fruitful discussion, I learned a lot.It's something I notice all the time, even if somebody thinks themselves as dumb, upon deeper conversation I find them to be just as mentally capable as anyone else. I no longer believe in intelligence or stupidity as generalized traits. I see it as an issue of will - some people are mentally lazy, others are mentally thorough... It's also situational, somebody can be mentally industrious in work but mentally lazy in social skills.So, there is how I relate false assumptions to the ego.
The whole thing 'god's motifs cannot be understood'-thing applied to the acts of genocide commited by biblical people on behaf of god, trying to justify them; that's just one of the things I speak against.
If you think that those people that wrote tbe bible can teach us modern people about love and understanding then you are just going about it the wrong way. These things are not really qualities the people of the bible themselves possessed. At least not f you look at it with our modern perspective.The bible can never teach those things.
There are also many christians that think that god, through the holy spirit and through people, wrote the bible and that the bible is the unerrant complete word of god.
Surely you'd be interested in that? It's about putting your knowledge to more effective use. You actually gave me more examples to work with here.
You based your counter on that incorrect assumption and spent time making a whole lot of points on something I wasn't even talking about.
...But it helped create those communities in the first place. It may not have been perfect, but I'd call that overall a good thing.
Sure. If a person is going to do good anyways, then their religion doesn't really have much to do with it.
The same could be said of a person behaving in a destructive way, whether or not they're religious.
If anything, it seems that faith was the reason he was a scientist at all.
I haven't come across anything I've disagreed with in the articles I read... I don't think Einstein wrote much on the idea of religion in the formation of society.
This enters into the realm of speculation, but I can't concieve of society getting to where it has today without the aid of religion.
An analogy could be training wheels in learning to ride a bike, religion helps keep us upright until we can learn to ride on our own.
Personally I have no use for organized religion, but I see that it can do good for a lot of people, which is the intent. Any tool can be perverted to unjust ends. The fork I'm using to eat my dinner could just as easily be used to stab me in the eye, but I won't say forks are bad because of it, stabbing me in the eye is bad.
Strange O_oWell first, it is not important whether sapere aude is a religious idea. It means "you got a brain, use it".
Absolutely nothing in this world is so simple that you can just switch your brain off, just read instructions, follow others etc like a stupid sheep in a herd full of idiots.
This *of course* applies to religion, too. Even in our religion class our teacher stressed the fact that dogma is the worst approach to religion.
We even learn this in school. And i know lots of people who are not dogmatists and they too believe that it is stupid, because it's too simple.
And as i said: What in life is simple? I don't care about stupid people trying to justify stupid things because they're too lazy to use their brain.
completely wrong. I'll say it again, even me as an agnostic can see the message behind the allegorys of the bible.
A lot of the bible is actually about people's everyday problems, about imperfect people doing wrong things, about what can be done better.The bible is about basic human problems.Have you read the bible btw?
Uhh, how much energy did you have at the time of writing this may i ask RC.
I am not interested.
I never tried to counter anyone. I just put fourth the idea that religious systems are all based on dogma passed down through authority. That 'religion' meaning 'religious ideas' are different from this is something else.
By killing other communities? Surely you cannot mean this.
I mean that religion can strengthen the motivation of doing good. Religion doesn't create the need to do good or the definition of what is good and bad.So religion enforces the behavior of people that is already there. In some that means killing people to collect souls. In other it means helping sick people to collect souls.
But maybe he just misused the word religion, meaning something totally different. Maybe he means something that lies in the line of this quote: Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution.Maybe he means philosphy, wonder, materialistic spirituality, asking questions, etc. And maybe he means that one needs to try to go beyond dry logic trying to tackle the problems of science because the nature of this universe is not logical or intuitive.
It seems that Einstein saw religion, the social phenomenom, as a tool used by politicians to control people. And he hated that while you seem to claim that you think this is a good thing.
Seems you have the same idea as Einstein here. But what the hell do both of you mean? If I look at religion I only see it trying to work against science. It seems that science and religion are antonyms. Two very different ways to approach the same problem. And one utterly fails while the other makes slow progress.
But does one really need a false answer to be able to get a real answer? Do we really need to imagine that the sun is being pushed along by a beetle for a few thousand years before we can actually attempt to answer the question for real?Seems clear that false answers defeat the need for real answers. So how can you claim that false answers lead to real answers? This is what Einstein seems to have claimed and this is clearly contrary to what we observe.
Religion has not been designed to do good things. Religion is a social phenomenon in human society. If one wants to know if it is a good or bad thing one has to weigh the plusses and the minusses. And clearly the minusses are far more numerous. The minusses of religion are not abuses of religion. They are just as essential as the positives.
You say you are an agnostic and you personally have no need for organised religion. Then what is religion for you? And how does this fit in with the whole 'religion motivating Science'-thing.Why do you have this bias in favour of religion, one you cannot seem to explain, while you are agnostic?
Ok, after posting my last message I realise it was term who called himself an agnostic and not rc.
According to the bible you need to kill Jesus. He is a false prophet according to the bible.Deuteronomy 18:20Mark 9:1, 13:30 and also 14:62
Alright then, I can respect that, though I can't understand it at all.
Sure you did.
I gave the opinion that religion does a lot of good, you gave some counters to that.
Of course not, hah. I mean only in the sense of holding the communities together. If someone uses religion to lead people to kill each other that's abuse of faith, I won't blame the tool for it's misuse.
For every person who is doing good or evil regardless, there are likely many more who just haven't given their actions much thought. So it's that strengthening motivation that is valuable. If religion can and is meant to tilt people in the direction of doing good, I support it.
The same arguement could be made against any media. Even in the name of science can people be led to destructive behavior, and we arrive to the blurry line between cult and religion (again, semantics).
Yes I agree with all that, once again we're at the issue of semantics, simply put - I don't care that Einstein used the word 'religion', he could have said any of those things, I prefer to call it 'spirituality'. His choice of using the word religion is irrelevent in light of understanding the meaning he was describing, and that meaning is a difficult think to talk about indeed!
I claim it CAN be used for good, and that good is the true intention. I suspect it does this more often than not.
What I think is that the ones who started religious movements saw the ills of the world and took action to improve the situation of the poor and downtrodden,
...the intention was to generally improve human existence (much like science!).
They were deep thinkers, they saw the difference between constructive and destructive behaviors, and the causes of those behaviors.
They also recognized that the people they were trying to help were uneducated and too busy with the daily burdens of survival to reach any useful conclusions on their own, so the people had to be led. The lessons were taught in accessible ways and relied on faith, in order to be effective at all.
Ironically the same methods can be used to accumulate power, the same power that took advantage of the poor and ignorant which the religion was going against.
What Einstein describes could acceptably be called religion, but try instead reading it as 'spirituality' if you must. Which could be described as a desire to generally do good, would you agree that there is such a thing as objective goodness? That is also sticky territory.
To remain with organized religion, it's the training-wheels analogy I used earlier. Because the poor don't have access to education, they remain ignorant and must be led.
Organized religion uses faith to this end, whether genuine or blind, because it is effective. Unfortunately the flaw leaves it open to abuse.
I would attempt to describe 'spirituality' as a sense of awe at the order of the universe,
..how everything fits together so well to create life on this earth,
... one gets a sense of a higher power/force/principle that would enable such harmonious existance.
Of course, at this point we're into the realm of faith, if science can prove such notions it's a long way off, in the meantime the concept must exist on faith if it's to exist at all.
So, this could also be called seeing a pattern that isn't there, because of it's unprovable faith-based nature, it's pointless to try either way to prove or disprove it.
If a false positive leads to good results, the reality of the percieved pattern isn't that important, but it's faith-based nature is unprovable anyways.
The problem is in trying to prove/disprove, it's a matter of believe/disbelieve. If a belief leads to good, keep it, the results are what matters. If one doesn't have a good understanding of cause and effect, they will have to be told.
My guess is, if one were to take only the commonalities among religions, there would be no BS. Maybe I'm just seeing patterns that aren't there, but I'm more concerned with whether these unprovable beliefs are useful.
More like how the false belief of man flying eventually led to the reality of airplanes.
It's because of the kooks who believe what is obviously crazy. At least, that's how I read it. Maybe his mistake was attempting to prove the unprovable. In any case, he attributes his earlier successes to his faith, so they lead to some good results.
An interesting thought. Perhaps those who began religions never had intended it to become an organization, but for somebody whose intention is to teach people to live good the desire to reach more people would make sense. Though the organizational aspect may have been a contruct to attain power... If the core message can achieve good results, then it still has that capacity for good.
Religion is not for me, but because it's useful to others I support it. Even if it's only a delusion, if it can help people lead contented lives then it's achieving a good result.
Thanks for the link to the video. My connection is pretty slow, I may have to find another computer to watch it. I'll check it out.
Only if misinterpreted.
How so? Seems to be a sound interpretation to me.Jesus was a prophet. He made false prophecies. That makes him a false prophet. The bible claims false prophet needs to be killed.
NO! nice to hear from you again prometheus - happy as ever I see! What a bizare tangent 'Jesus should be killed because he was a false prohpet' - I laughed so much at that one! Jesus never spoke a word of a lie and we know from scripture that in all things he was obedient to his father. So he was never guilty of giving any false prophecies.
The Bible has accurately prophecied vast changes in world history over the course of thousands of years.
It's no real use discussing about each other's personalities and discussion styles over the internet.Since I was using my definition of religion independently of your definition of religion, both should have been clear from the context, I do not see any problem.
For ethical behavior doubt is better than strenghtening. Like you say, people need to put in more thought. Religion prevents this.
Ideologies can have the same effect as religion. But if you examine closely you will see that these ideologies are often secular substitutes of religion. Eg, communism.
If he meant spirituality then he should have used that word. Same goes for you.
I don't understand this. You have a supernatural idea caused by primitive superstition and then you decide to become compassionate? How does that work?Why is a supernatural idea needed to decide to improve human existence?
Do you really think people are sheep that need to be lead by an Technocracy?
To 'generally do good' is something religious or spiritual? I consider myself to be a spiritual person and a person that tries to do good. But I don't see the connection between the two.
I hope you don't mean this is really benefitial. If you are then I must assume you are just desperately trying to find a justification for religion.
What is 'genuine faith'? How can faith not be blind?
No offence but it sounds like me that the seed of faith has been planted in you.
If something can only exist on blind emotional inspiration then what intellectual value has it? Can't we just conclude that such an idea is almost certainly false?
You seem to think that religion kindles the imagination where science is just dry and boring logic. Or at least this is the idea you seem to promote.
Look at all the scientists writing crazy science fiction ideas. It is not forbidden to have crazy ideas according to science. The point is that you don't start to believe that these crazy ideas are true.
Ok, I also support the right of people to have delusions. But I also try to speak for reason and education. But I oppose the right of someone to force their delusion unto children.People can harm themselves. But they should not be allowed to harm others, especially not children because they have no resistance against this.
You need to watch the video because it makes my main point.
Jesus never spoke a word of a lie
The problem was in relating to an irrelavent aspect of what somebody says, and I feel a little silly getting sucked into topic I had no intention of arguing , especially when I should be practicing. I think in any discussion between two people the human aspects of personality are relevant... No matter now, we've made it this far.
You made a comment earlier, something along the lines of "a disbelief can't be motivation, for good or evil", which hints to the core of why beliefs are necessary.
To have any kind of behavior one must believe in something, physical proof doesn't matter. It can be a scientific law or faith. Disbelief has its place in theorizing, in the real world of action and events people don't have time to wait around for the certainty of scientific law.
Just as a good man will continue to do good under religion, neither will it prevent a thinking man.
It's an idea I've been playing with. [...]
I told you directly I don't know much of the topic. But seriously, do you know anybody who's poor and struggling to make ends meet? Such a person isn't usually in any condition to ponder too deep into their actions, the people I know like this aren't even TRUELY poor... Besides I was talking more about the distant past. So do you have anything to say on the point or are you content with being a jackass?
By genuine faith I meant a belief held on the grounds of the effect it has, one that's been thought through. I called it faith because we're talking about the kinds of beliefs that aren't provable.
My brief history of faith: my Dad went to Catholic school, always was in trouble for arguing when the teachers said things like "thou shalt not take another mans blood = blood transfusions are wrong". Apparently I used to go to sunday school, until my Dad one day asked if I wanted to go anymore, I have no recollection. This thread may be the most thought I've bothered to give to organized religion. Recently I've been more interested in exploring Buddhism and Tao.
If you want. If an unprovable belief I have bring me to act in good ways I don't care if it's 'false', the results aren't.
If the 'false' way I visualize playing the piano helps me play better, it wouldn't make sense to throw it out for not being real... Or the 'false' way that inspires a composer to write beautiful music.
Do you see what I'm saying? Do you see how this relates to religion?
You must have me confused for someone else. I love to read about how scientists test their ideas, amazing imagination!
My point was you have to believe in them enough to test them. Belief in the possibility.
heh, they probably won't have to force their beliefs on a child. But realistically, what is a parent to do BUT pass their beliefs to their children. A kind of thought-heredity.
Regarding the use of parables.. They were told to 'illustrate' truth not lies. Jesus knew if he said Im God I am good be like me..they wouldnt get it because He looked just like them. So he told them by way of illustrations(parables) which he knew they would be able to relate to. They are in no sense lies. We dont know if the samaritan was a case study that Jesus was recollecting (using different people etc) or whether it was just a story he made on the spot to show the point but the point is that parables reveal the truth (in this case the opne who is dispised coming along side and tending for the man who left to himself would have surely died!...its a blatant picture of salvation and what He himself was doing for us - there are of course many other points we can glean from it)Regarding the prophecies Jesus himself gave about the generation not passing away before his return etc we have to remember that Gods sense of time isnt bound by our earthly confines..a day is like a year etc The word generation there is also race and in context he is speaking about the elect - those chosen by God. There is also the possibility that generation refers to this particular period of creation as in context he is speaking about the world coming to an end and he is reassuring the believers this wont take place until they see him coming to gather them along with all the angels described in the same passage. the closing words also show the degree of care and emphasis Jesus placed on every word he spoke ' 30 I tell you the TRUTH, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will passa way, BUT my words will never pass away'Regarding Rev 22:12 This was a vision given to John and it is speaking of the future. How far into the future we do not know he didnt say on the 23rd 03 2007! but we know by the statement 'Behold(take notice) i am coming soo!' that it is his intent not to delay and that preparations are being made for his return. Much of the preparation work is in fact referring to the second part of that clause. 'My reard is with me'. His reward in context is his bride (the Church) or as it is reffered to elsewhere the elect. They are right now being made ready as a bride makes ready for her wedding so that when Jesus returns they will be ready to stand alongside him at the wedding of Jesus and his redeemed bride. I dont know about you but when someone says they are getting married we tend to think in terms of months away because of all the preparations necessary. This one is the wedding to top them all!! In Jesus' mind the date is set and everything is being made ready NOW. We dont know the day of his appearing but when He says soon he means the time is approaching and we need to be found ready. I challenge you on behalf of God's word...are you ready to see a Glorious risen Christ who will 'give to everyoe according to what (each) has done'
You are depending (I think) entirely on Biblical sources for all that you claim has happened and will happen. I realise that much of what I am about to say is repetition of what I have said elsewhere earlier, but the source on which you depend is a multi-author book written over a period of decades without overall editorial supervision which is both incomplete and has been translated out of all recognition over some two thousand years; add to that not only the different emphases and nuances as well as the varying literary styles and prowess of the authors AND the question of how truthful and detailed their various pieces of reportage may be and you have what amounts to a far from reliable source upon which to base such specific predictions.
Topic: not another religion topic! 