well there are some religions that don't have "explaining" things as their focus. Rather, they focus on morals, discipline, and the like, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc etc
Being Christian myself I think this is the case as most all of my pastor's sermons have deeply philosophical moral questions being discussed in them.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;37239250]well there are some religions that don't have "explaining" things as their focus. Rather, they focus on morals, discipline, and the like, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc etc
Being Christian myself I think this is the case as most all of my pastor's sermons have deeply philosophical moral questions being discussed in them.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying religions are focused on explaining things. On the contrary, I'm saying they aren't. Mythology seeks to explain nature with some kind of narrative, religion grew out of mythology, but its main purpose back then wasn't to explain things [I]because things were already explained[/I] (more or less).
It's the same thing as asking, why is there Cults?
Well, check this out.
The Cult Leader:
[img_thumb]http://www.toomanymornings.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/pope-benedict.jpg[/img_thumb]
The Cult Leader's flock:
[img_thumb]http://mariakumar.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Vatican-square-rome-pope-benedict.jpg[/img_thumb]
I'd show you other Cult Leaders, but some of them you are familiar with. They are the people who have flocks of people (animals) who do their bidding. Whether they are going to war, driving planes into skyscrapers, strapping bombs to themselves, etc. they are all doing this for their Cult Leaders.
Religion, politics, the vatican, and everything is very interesting if you think of it as just animal behavior.
[QUOTE=SwissDRRex;37151511]
You marvel at the 'relatively' simple systems that allow the robot to 'perceive' light. You say to yourself, the Robot doesn't REALLY understand light, or KNOW what light is - yet is it capable on some small level of experiencing and responding to it.
WHILST at the same time, you assume that your perception of the world and 'reality' though your potentially limited receptors is the CORRECT - and highest form of perception.
well - what if it wasn't - what if your perception of reality was RELATIVELY SPEAKING as limited as the infrared device that flushes the toilet after you've taken a piss? What then?
When you're in a dream - do you doubt that it is your whole reality? I don't.[/QUOTE]
But the point of a true scientist is to question, no matter the circumstance. I do believe that knowledge that Man may obtain is limited but only to the time it takes to observe before the universe has crumbled. However the limitation of knowledge isn't observed from a higher power, but merely from careful thought. Unlike us, the robot would have to take a look into the proverbial "mirror" and realize there is more than just energy in light.
That being said I think the existence of religion was mostly used as a tool to explain things they could not yet learn. Hence in today's society, I believe one sticks to religion to be comforted from the most scary unknown, death.
Religion was made out of ignorance. It was the easy way to explain everything back when the world knew nothing... and it is still used today as the easy way out to explain the unexplainable. Religion became so common and accepted that anyone who actually tried to figure out the origins of things with logic and reason was looked down upon until years later when there became enough of the logical people where everyone was like "That actually kinda makes sense." Even then... they still believed everything was right about religion EXCEPT that one thing that was wrong instead of just being like "Wait... all this was wrong, well I'm guessing it's just all wrong."
It exists because humans don't like to not know things so they came up with explanations way back when.
Those traditions have been exploited to oppress and corrupt. Why then do we still have it? Humans are creatures of habit.
A positive aspect is it gives and hope and helps those who can't think for themselves (sometimes) learn good virtues.
[QUOTE=shrike843;37298497]But the point of a true scientist is to question, no matter the circumstance. I do believe that knowledge that Man may obtain is limited but only to the time it takes to observe before the universe has crumbled. However the limitation of knowledge isn't observed from a higher power, but merely from careful thought. Unlike us, the robot would have to take a look into the proverbial "mirror" and realize there is more than just energy in light.
That being said I think the existence of religion was mostly used as a tool to explain things they could not yet learn. Hence in today's society, I believe one sticks to religion to be comforted from the most scary unknown, death.[/QUOTE]
Or to die in peace. You know, some people probably even in the face of death are in peace with themselves (and their God) due to their strong religious nature that they have "practiced" their entire life, more or less.
And I thought the endless questioning was for philosophers, and not scientists so much.
I mean, scientists study and do research and excavations, finding out about stuff. Due to this and the right sophisticated techniques of study, people's information pool has been expanding as rapidly as the Universe, and that's something quite significant.
christianity is like got a lot of repsonsibles for like how we are got good technology and shit today so yeah god gave it to us so we advance to how we are today so one day we get space shiops and meet him
Organized religion has fucked our world up. It may have started with honest beginnings but it is now and has been for thousands of years a way to control the populous. I believe that man does not need religion to have good morals, morals come from each individual and they're experiences. I always felt religion was an easy way out from having to deal with death or/and the reality that human beings are no more special than any other organism or being on earth, if anything worship the planet that gave birth to our species and the billions of others before us.
I like to think religion is a kind of social phenomena were prehistoric civilizations who are oblivious to science turn to a 'divine creator' to explain why they are here.
I bet if we find extra terrestrial civilizations we will find at one point in their existence they believed in a creator or a number of creators.
I say religions were made back then by few people that wanted that the world is more managed.
They told lies, they spreaded, and the dumb ones belived in them.
Later there were alot of religions though since if you tell a story, and he tells it to other one etc. it'll later end up differently than beginning.
I think religion in the modern sense is meant to help people cope with the bad things in peoples' lives, giving them an answer to what happens when you die, and praying, which may give people a sense of hope that things can go their way someday soon. My parents had to make the decision to put my dog down this morning, and I honestly think if they didn't believe in God and some type of afterlife, they would have had an even harder time deciding what to do.
I think its kinda funny that its almot only none-belivers in this discussion. So its really nothing to discuss if you all agree. Though myself im a christian. And anyways if religion exists, good for the religius that they had right. If not, what harm can it have done? Most religions tells people to be nice to eachother. Can't see anything negative with that...
[QUOTE=oytal;37406201]I think its kinda funny that its almot only none-belivers in this discussion. So its really nothing to discuss if you all agree. Though myself im a christian. And anyways if religion exists, good for the religius that they had right. If not, what harm can it have done? Most religions tells people to be nice to eachother. Can't see anything negative with that...[/QUOTE]
I'm a Christian too, but not of any specific branch. I don't really understand what you're saying exactly. Yes, religions teach tolerance, but our differences, no matter how small, cause feuds. The fact that people have a set of beliefs that they think will bring them eternal life means they're gonna try to share it with others, especially to the people who believe something different.
At their core, almost all religions teach the same fundamentals (be nice, don't kill/rape/steal, etc.), but people don't see that. They see labels dividing everyone, and they think people who believe something different think they're wrong, and usually take it personally.
[QUOTE=BlueFlash;37408654]I'm a Christian too, but not of any specific branch. I don't really understand what you're saying exactly. Yes, religions teach tolerance, but our differences, no matter how small, cause feuds. The fact that people have a set of beliefs that they think will bring them eternal life means they're gonna try to share it with others, especially to the people who believe something different.
At their core, almost all religions teach the same fundamentals (be nice, don't kill/rape/steal, etc.), but people don't see that. They see labels dividing everyone, and they think people who believe something different think they're wrong, and usually take it personally.[/QUOTE]
I'm a protestant, mate, and I agree with you. Non believers and believers alike label all religions, and some of the most intolerant people I've ever met are religious maniacs. Just like everything else, you need to take religion in moderation, don't let it absorb your life completely.
[QUOTE="Paul Dirac"]I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.[/QUOTE]
(Not sure if posted)
[QUOTE=JohanGS;37469782](Not sure if posted)[/QUOTE]
I seriously don't understand people who have this kind of opinions about religion (i.e. 'religion is the root of all evil!'). Don't you realize that if Christianity hasn't existed we wouldn't even be close to having the kind of values and ideals we have?
[QUOTE=matsta;37470714]I seriously don't understand people who have this kind of opinions about religion (i.e. 'religion is the root of all evil!'). Don't you realize that if Christianity hasn't existed we wouldn't even be close to having the kind of values and ideals we have?[/QUOTE]
Values or ideals don't have to be based on religion.
[QUOTE=matsta;37470714]I seriously don't understand people who have this kind of opinions about religion (i.e. 'religion is the root of all evil!'). Don't you realize that if Christianity hasn't existed we wouldn't even be close to having the kind of values and ideals we have?[/QUOTE]
ahahah christianity is nothing special in regard to morals
it's a pretty mediocre religion. buddhism & co are much better (relatively speaking of course, buddhism has problems of its own)
[editline]30th August 2012[/editline]
give me one good moral ideal we wouldn't have if christianity hadn't come about
I was just coming up with my own idea why christianity and islam were created.
Because in both the quran and the bible it tells us to Kill the Gays and before christ (BC) I know alexander the Great had conquered most of the middle east or the persian empire (such as israel which contained jerusalem) during 300ish BC (I dont know the exact date). And I hear that the Greeks accepted Homosexuality strongly in their ancient civilisation so I thought that the people who made the bible or the quran felt that the greeks were enemys and everything they did or were was an enemy so homosexuality was linked with being bad. Although it may have not been greeks and just the local pagans in the area as some people say that Gay sex was practiced as a pagan ritual in some cases, I did read up on the celts and even they had homosexual sex as part of some ritual.
But I base that on nothing and im just really guessing. I know the bible and quran couldnt possible have been written by the same person as it is argued that both of them are just a collection of more common well told stories at the time which came from many people, hence why theres so many contradictions in them which tell you not to kill people but then in another section it tells you killing is right in some cases.
But why religion in general was created? To gain Enlightenment, To unite people under one cause, To guide them in their lifes.
the bible rarely mentions homosexuality and I believe the same is true of the quran
[editline]30th August 2012[/editline]
your entire history is just wrong, i'm sorry
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37471634]ahahah christianity is nothing special in regard to morals
it's a pretty mediocre religion. buddhism & co are much better (relatively speaking of course, buddhism has problems of its own)
[editline]30th August 2012[/editline]
give me one good moral ideal we wouldn't have if christianity hadn't come about[/QUOTE]
Well, first, the whole idea of equality wouldn't be there if it wasn't from Christianity. It is relatively easy to notice that idea if your read some parts of the New Testament. Yet, in the time the bible was written, hardly anyone one talked about equality. Also, the 'concern for the suffering of the poor' broke many cultural paradigms of that time. Not in the sense that other religion didn't offer consolation for the poor or anything, but in the sense that the New Testament characterized Jesus and his situation as a passive rebellion [I]against the oppressive government of that time[/I]. So the post that I replied to is pointless at rendering religion as the 'oppressor' here.
[editline]30th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohanGS;37471116]Values or ideals don't have to be based on religion.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying they have to. What I'm saying is that religions [I]gave us[/I] most values in first place.
[QUOTE=matsta;37477345]Well, first, the whole idea of equality wouldn't be there if it wasn't from Christianity.[/QUOTE]
Really? The concept of equality among peoples did not exist before Christianity? Hell, that wasn't even a view held by most Christians after Christianity got started. And whether Biblical Jesus cared for the poor or not, it is by no means exclusive to Christianity, not now or ever. There are plenty of Atheists and other irreligious people such as myself who have concern for the poor, without any form of faith in the Bible, and did not derive that concern from a Christian belief system.
[QUOTE=Megafan;37478447]Really? The concept of equality among peoples did not exist before Christianity?[/QUOTE]
Nope. Not at least in the western word as far as I know.
[QUOTE]Hell, that wasn't even a view held by most Christians [I]after Christianity got started.[/I][/QUOTE]
Depends on what you take 'most Chistians' and 'after Christianity got started' for. I would say that Christianity did last some time as a pro-equality religion while it was absorbed (and corrupted by) the Roman empire.
[QUOTE]And whether Biblical Jesus cared for the poor or not, it is by no means exclusive to Christianity, not now or ever. There are plenty of Atheists and other irreligious people such as myself who have concern for the poor, without any form of faith in the Bible, and did not derive that concern from a Christian belief system.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]There are plenty of Atheists and other irreligious people such as myself who have concern for the poor, without any form of faith in the Bible, and did not derive that concern from a Christian belief system, [I]just from values I have been exposed to when my moral conception of the word was developing, those values themselves being greatly influenced by Christianity.[/I][/QUOTE]
fix'd.
[editline]31st August 2012[/editline]
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying some forms of Christianity shouldn't be totally abolished. In fact, I would eradicate all forms of hierarchic religion, what I wanted to express is that Christianity itself (the religion that most of you seem to dislike) didn't have the form of a hierarchic authoritarian system when it started.
[QUOTE=matsta;37477345]Well, first, the whole idea of equality wouldn't be there if it wasn't from Christianity.[/quote]
not true in the slightest. equality as we know it today was born of the secular Enlightenment wherein the concept of natural rights were brought to being by reason and discussion, and then applied to an ever expanding circle of previously maligned groups: other religions, the poor, women, other races, other nationalities, gays, the disabled, animals, etc. nearly every rights revolution was fought tooth and nail at every turn by the religious establishment.
[quote]It is relatively easy to notice that idea if your read some parts of the New Testament. Yet, in the time the bible was written, hardly anyone one talked about equality.[/quote]
nor did they for several hundred years afterwards
[quote]Also, the 'concern for the suffering of the poor' broke many cultural paradigms of that time. Not in the sense that other religion didn't offer consolation for the poor or anything, but in the sense that the New Testament characterized Jesus and his situation as a passive rebellion [I]against the oppressive government of that time[/I]. So the post that I replied to is pointless at rendering religion as the 'oppressor' here.[/quote]
[quote=Matthew 10:34]I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword[/quote]
lol christianity was a populist cult movement against roman imperialism and was nothing new at the time. the romans didn't give a shit initially because they had seen the archetype a thousand times before, and mostly they fizzled out. christianity happened to be the one that stuck and you have just never heard of the ones that didn't, history being written by the victors and all. have you ever heard of zoroastrianism or arianism? the story of a messiah coming to free oppressed people against aggression from above and deliver them to a promised land is an enduring template that is in countless cultures and existed in one form or another throughout history, from jesus (assuming he existed at all, which is dubious) through to the prophet muhamed spreading islam by the sword, all the way to marxism and the workers revolt leading to a socialist paradise, national socialism and the holy cause of obtaining lebensraum after killing the filthy people already there, and of course zionism which kinda brings it full circle.
any pretense at caring for the poor was a bit of cynical realpolitik
[quote]I'm not saying they have to. What I'm saying is that religions [I]gave us[/I] most values in first place.[/QUOTE]
where did we have our moral values before organized religions? did you know that hunter gather tribes, despite their tremendous brutality, were among the most egalitarian societies in human history, and the surviving few still are.
anatomically modern humans have been around for a [I]lot[/I] longer than organized religions, and we self-evidently did not wipe each other out. we clearly had morals, and they were not from religion, they were from a complex interplay of evolutionary psychology and the cultures specific to the environments in which this or that tribe lived.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37483911]not true in the slightest. equality as we know it today was born of the secular Enlightenment wherein the concept of natural rights were brought to being by reason and discussion, and then applied to an ever expanding circle of previously maligned groups: other religions, the poor, women, other races, other nationalities, gays, the disabled, animals, etc. nearly every rights revolution was fought tooth and nail at every turn by the religious establishment.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Galatians 3:28]There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Romans 2:11-16][...][I]For there is no partiality with God[/I]. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. [I]For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts[/I] [...][/QUOTE]
Yeah, right.
[QUOTE=I]It is relatively easy to notice that idea if your read some parts of the New Testament. Yet, in the time the bible was written, hardly anyone one talked about equality.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37483911]nor did they for several hundred years afterwards[/QUOTE]
That's right, they didn't. I agree with you. But, what does that prove?
[QUOTE=I]Also, the 'concern for the suffering of the poor' broke many cultural paradigms of that time. Not in the sense that other religion didn't offer consolation for the poor or anything, but in the sense that the New Testament characterized Jesus and his situation as a passive rebellion against the oppressive government of that time. So the post that I replied to is pointless at rendering religion as the 'oppressor' here.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=you]lol christianity was a populist [I]cult[/I] movement against roman imperialism and was nothing new at the time. the romans didn't give a shit initially because they had seen the archetype a thousand times before, and mostly they fizzled out.[/QUOTE]
Okay, are you fucking serious? I really hope you're not, because if you are actually serious, you don't know how wrong you are. How on earth can ancient Christianity be considered a 'cult' movement if it had the least amount of rituals possible? The whole reason I (and others) consider the New Testament as being 'special' among other religious books is the lack of rituals, those rituals who would be indicative of a 'cult', or some other form of mystic religiosity.
[QUOTE]christianity happened to be the one that stuck and you have just never heard of the ones that didn't, history being written by the victors and all. have you ever heard of zoroastrianism or arianism? the story of a messiah coming to free oppressed people against aggression from above and deliver them to a promised land is an enduring template that is in countless cultures and existed in one form or another throughout history, from jesus (assuming he existed at all, which is dubious) through to the prophet muhamed spreading islam by the sword, all the way to marxism and the workers revolt leading to a socialist paradise, national socialism and the holy cause of obtaining lebensraum after killing the filthy people already there, and of course zionism which kinda brings it full circle.[/QUOTE]
I know that there were many movements in the same time and that most of them just ended shortly after they started. If any of those religious movements would've stuck, we would know of completely different values than we do. What does that has to do with anything I said? And, of course most movements promise some kind of 'paradise', but that also has nothing to do with their values and what I said about releasing from oppression in the specific context.
[QUOTE]where did we have our moral values before organized religions? did you know that hunter gather tribes, despite their tremendous brutality, were among the most egalitarian [I]societies[/I] in human history, and the surviving few still are.[/QUOTE]
Technically speaking, the societies and the very concept of 'society' didn't emerge until XVI century. And I know those tribes were organized in the very egalitarian manner, but it was because of the limited roles there were in the tribes themselves. Egalitarianism didn't work and wasn't an ideal anymore when those tribes began growing into civilizations.
[QUOTE]anatomically modern humans have been around for a [I]lot[/I] longer than organized religions, and we self-evidently did not wipe each other out. we clearly had morals, and they were not from religion, they were from a complex interplay of evolutionary psychology and the cultures specific to the environments in which this or that tribe lived.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying we didn't have morals. Are you even reading what I wrote? Of course we would have morals without the influence of Christianity, only they would have been completely different without that phenomenon that ultimately set the foundation for modern European moral conception.
[QUOTE=matsta;37489349]Technically speaking, the societies and the very concept of 'society' didn't emerge until [b]XVI century[/b]. And I know those tribes were organized in the very egalitarian manner, but it was because of the limited roles there were in the tribes themselves. Egalitarianism didn't work and wasn't an ideal anymore when those tribes began growing into civilizations.[/QUOTE]
please tell me you aren't confusing the end of the middle ages with the beginning of civilization.
before the renaissance, humans considered themselves servants of god and believed everything they did was to please divine entities. it wasn't until the renaissance when humanism (the belief that our own feelings matter, and the emphasis on doing things because they make US happy, not god) became prevalent.
[QUOTE=Guy Mannly;37489539]please tell me you aren't confusing the end of the middle ages with the beginning of civilization.
[I]before the renaissance, humans considered themselves servants of god and believed everything they did was to please divine entities. it wasn't until the renaissance when humanism (the belief that our own feelings matter, and the emphasis on doing things because they make US happy, not god) became prevalent.[/I][/QUOTE]
You're wrong. Fast counterexample: the Greek philosophers. Period.
[editline]1st September 2012[/editline]
And no, I'm not confusing the end of the middle ages with the begging of civilization. Never said that. I'm relating the 'end of the middle ages' (the Renaissance) with the origin of the concept of [I]society[/I].
then your concept of "society" is just as inaccurate as your concept of what the word "cult" defines. i'm genuinely curious - how do you define society if ancient egyptian and mesopotamian civilizations - and possibly ancient greece and rome, depending on whether you were referring to bc or ad - are excluded from your definition?
the italicized part of my post was in relation to christianity. bringing up greek philosophers isn't applicable to humanism because paganism functions completely differently from christianity. pagan religions revolve around performing ritual acts to appease the gods. the individual feelings of the worshippers are completely irrelevant. however, christianity is based on an individual's beliefs and how they truly feel about their god rather than how they choose to worship him. christianity also emphasizes the concept of sinning and repenting for one's sins, whereas pagan religions don't have any such concept.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.