Agreed,topal63 wrote:
PS: I completely disagree with the thread starters opinion. The problem with religion is not that it is; that it exists. Rather it's inability to accept new truths and accept the appropriate label "myth." Myth is a word that connotes truth in the parable; the story; and not the literal happenstances in the story. It's the meaning of the story - not that it literally happened (of course that is an IMO). But, there in a nutshell you have it: literal interpretations of religious myths, as opposed to the psychological impact of the meaning - the ideals being conveyed therein; leads to all sorts of superstitious nonsense.
so what would a rooster be?
A pimp.God Save the Queen wrote:
so what would a rooster be?
Im a rooster
Whenever my wife gets outta line, I just let her know who's who... "don't make me raise my pimp-hand woman! This Nike is bout to come my foot and hits you up upside da head!" Then she tells me to STFU and I obey.God Save the Queen wrote:
Im a rooster
I covered this before: the word alone only means that you don't believe in a deity. I like that definition, too, though. However, if you think are willing for even a moment to accept that you are the sole member of your religion, in which the tenets are your beliefs (among those is the belief that there is no deity), I do believe it fits into that category. You are certainly not areligious, as that would require a lack of belief in anything and being, in essence, incapable of thought about those issues.Drakef wrote:
Atheism is certainly not a religion.
Firstly, to claim it as a set of beliefs is false when we consider that atheism is a lack of belief, ergo atheists share no beliefs. To the statement, "the universe is, or was brought into being, by an intelligent being", where opinion here seems to believe that if one either accepts or denies the proposition, it is of a religious nature, atheists do not accept the proposition. It is not a collective acceptance, but a lack thereof, and does not have an opinion. Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby. Is it accurate to say that a lack of belief is a religion?
I prefer this definition of religion: "A system of cultural beliefs and practices—including moral codes, rituals and devotional observances—concerning the creation, nature and purpose of the universe and the role of a god, gods or other superhuman agencies therein."
Under this definition, atheism is most certainly not a religion. We don't worship, we don't congregate, we don't believe. To a certain extent, atheism can be a lack of religion.
I must wonder why there is a stigma associated with the word "religion" though. Here on the forum it is often used as an insult to be a "religious person" in much the same manner politicians are referred to as crooked.
Last edited by DesertFox- (2008-07-14 16:14:52)
Not necessarily.CommieChipmunk wrote:
I'm saying this:Yes? No?me wrote:
less people would feel the need to give their lives in war should consciousness end at the end of our lives here.
1) Religion can tie afterlife consequence to mortal action.
2) If the sole belief was that your consciousness dissipates permanently once your dead, society would likely tend even more to an anarchic state.
3) Humanity is by nature a violent and unpredictable species. Denied one excuse to kill each other, another would pop up. Elbow room.
Anything based on decieving people into doing your will is evil, we ask for proof & they say have faith? If there was a God of the religions we would have eaten fire balls by now, think about it.
Ironic post is ironic.Braddock wrote:
I have my own way of contemplating the universe and my own set of morals (largely shaped by a combination of what is deemed socially acceptable in Western society and my own philosophical insights)
You do realize that "what is deemed socially acceptable in Western society" is based largely on religious precepts, don't you?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
You are mistaken on the idea of atheism. It is not that I have a belief that there are no gods, but that I lack any belief. In lacking belief, it does not mean that I am "incapable of thought about these issues", but that I simply do not hold beliefs; I can theorize easily while maintaining no belief nor religion. Atheism is not a religion, nor is it being religious. Atheists cannot be religious for not holding any beliefs. Does a machine have morality while it lacks any moral code? Is the newborn part of an atheist religion when it is barely conscious for not holding beliefs? Does complete ignorance of politics today in a person constitute his political beliefs, instead of being apolitical?DesertFox- wrote:
I covered this before: the word alone only means that you don't believe in a deity. I like that definition, too, though. However, if you think are willing for even a moment to accept that you are the sole member of your religion, in which the tenets are your beliefs (among those is the belief that there is no deity), I do believe it fits into that category. You are certainly not areligious, as that would require a lack of belief in anything and being, in essence, incapable of thought about those issues.Drakef wrote:
Atheism is certainly not a religion.
Firstly, to claim it as a set of beliefs is false when we consider that atheism is a lack of belief, ergo atheists share no beliefs. To the statement, "the universe is, or was brought into being, by an intelligent being", where opinion here seems to believe that if one either accepts or denies the proposition, it is of a religious nature, atheists do not accept the proposition. It is not a collective acceptance, but a lack thereof, and does not have an opinion. Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby. Is it accurate to say that a lack of belief is a religion?
I prefer this definition of religion: "A system of cultural beliefs and practices—including moral codes, rituals and devotional observances—concerning the creation, nature and purpose of the universe and the role of a god, gods or other superhuman agencies therein."
Under this definition, atheism is most certainly not a religion. We don't worship, we don't congregate, we don't believe. To a certain extent, atheism can be a lack of religion.
I must wonder why there is a stigma associated with the word "religion" though. Here on the forum it is often used as an insult to be a "religious person" in much the same manner politicians are referred to as crooked.
1) Apparently, we've reached a point where religion forgives murder if it's justified by the government, I think those who kill in war are 'free and clear.'unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Not necessarily.CommieChipmunk wrote:
I'm saying this:Yes? No?me wrote:
less people would feel the need to give their lives in war should consciousness end at the end of our lives here.
1) Religion can tie afterlife consequence to mortal action.
2) If the sole belief was that your consciousness dissipates permanently once your dead, society would likely tend even more to an anarchic state.
3) Humanity is by nature a violent and unpredictable species. Denied one excuse to kill each other, another would pop up. Elbow room.
2) I guess that I can see this, but I wouldn't necessarily call it an anarchic state. If society came to the realization that life on earth was it, I think that there would be mass panic amongst many religious communities for a while, but I honestly believe that life would be cherished more than it is presently once everyone settled down...
3) I disagree. I don't believe that the majority of the population is violent by nature and I think that the fact that there is a disease like PTSD shows this. I won't go so far as to say that violence is a learned behavior, but it is an instinct that can certainly be suppressed if society chose to.
Which are largely based on common sense, no? All you have to do is take out the guy with the beard and the red guy with the horns.FEOS wrote:
Ironic post is ironic.Braddock wrote:
I have my own way of contemplating the universe and my own set of morals (largely shaped by a combination of what is deemed socially acceptable in Western society and my own philosophical insights)
You do realize that "what is deemed socially acceptable in Western society" is based largely on religious precepts, don't you?
I personally believe that religion followed the natural order of man and not the other way around. You can even see order in animal societies and they don't have religion. Religion just provides a fancy way of explaining it.
O really? I think you're confusing secularism with Communism and Fascism.Phrozenbot wrote:
Secularism has caused more deaths than religion.
Yes he is. While Communism is outwardly secular (religion is banned) and Fascism is indirectly very, very secular (the state is to be worshiped as if above God) Communism and Fascism do not encompass everything secular, just most of the people killed for secular reasons and most of the people killed for whatever reason.Turquoise wrote:
O really? I think you're confusing secularism with Communism and Fascism.Phrozenbot wrote:
Secularism has caused more deaths than religion.
I find it damn hard to believe that you hold no beliefs whatsoever about the agreed-upon definition of religion. Unless you control your thoughts so well that the subject has never come up, I must think that everyone considers it for at least a length of time.Drakef wrote:
You are mistaken on the idea of atheism. It is not that I have a belief that there are no gods, but that I lack any belief. In lacking belief, it does not mean that I am "incapable of thought about these issues", but that I simply do not hold beliefs; I can theorize easily while maintaining no belief nor religion. Atheism is not a religion, nor is it being religious. Atheists cannot be religious for not holding any beliefs. Does a machine have morality while it lacks any moral code? Is the newborn part of an atheist religion when it is barely conscious for not holding beliefs? Does complete ignorance of politics today in a person constitute his political beliefs, instead of being apolitical?DesertFox- wrote:
I covered this before: the word alone only means that you don't believe in a deity. I like that definition, too, though. However, if you think are willing for even a moment to accept that you are the sole member of your religion, in which the tenets are your beliefs (among those is the belief that there is no deity), I do believe it fits into that category. You are certainly not areligious, as that would require a lack of belief in anything and being, in essence, incapable of thought about those issues.Drakef wrote:
Atheism is certainly not a religion.
Firstly, to claim it as a set of beliefs is false when we consider that atheism is a lack of belief, ergo atheists share no beliefs. To the statement, "the universe is, or was brought into being, by an intelligent being", where opinion here seems to believe that if one either accepts or denies the proposition, it is of a religious nature, atheists do not accept the proposition. It is not a collective acceptance, but a lack thereof, and does not have an opinion. Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby. Is it accurate to say that a lack of belief is a religion?
I prefer this definition of religion: "A system of cultural beliefs and practices—including moral codes, rituals and devotional observances—concerning the creation, nature and purpose of the universe and the role of a god, gods or other superhuman agencies therein."
Under this definition, atheism is most certainly not a religion. We don't worship, we don't congregate, we don't believe. To a certain extent, atheism can be a lack of religion.
I must wonder why there is a stigma associated with the word "religion" though. Here on the forum it is often used as an insult to be a "religious person" in much the same manner politicians are referred to as crooked.
Radical forms of Christianity, Judeism, and Islam cause many problems. The three seemed to be driven up by dogma, caused by the friction against the three, since they share the same basic stuff. I saw a trailer for the documentary "Jesus Camp" - the children were taught to be "God's army" and to "give their lives for Christ." Radical religious groups in the middle east blow themselves up, because murder is apparently okay as long as you kill a "non-believer" in a few religions...
Jihad is meant to be an "internal spiritual struggle," not an armed fight against non-believers. Also, according to the Koran:
"permission to fight is given only to those who have been oppressed... who have been driven from their homes for saying,'God is our Lord'" (22:39)
Thus, it's radicals who mis-interperet religious texts who cause the problem.
Jihad is meant to be an "internal spiritual struggle," not an armed fight against non-believers. Also, according to the Koran:
"permission to fight is given only to those who have been oppressed... who have been driven from their homes for saying,'God is our Lord'" (22:39)
Thus, it's radicals who mis-interperet religious texts who cause the problem.
To the nature of ideas that religion addresses, I have no beliefs concerning the origin of the universe or any supernatural beings. That would be the central definition of atheism, or at the very least negative atheism, which is likely the most popular form of atheism. Naturally, I have ideas and various theories (not scientific theories, of course), but they are not beliefs. I may consider it without choosing a belief, but my personal answer to any such concept is that "I don't know". I refuse to pretend that I can choose to believe something is correct in this particular area of philosophy without further evidence. Any ideas entailed may be considered more or less likely, such as that I consider the Abrahamic religions as interpreted by their texts to be very unlikely, yet still possible. At the end, however, it is that I do not know, and therefore hold no belief.DesertFox- wrote:
I find it damn hard to believe that you hold no beliefs whatsoever about the agreed-upon definition of religion. Unless you control your thoughts so well that the subject has never come up, I must think that everyone considers it for at least a length of time.
Many tenets of religion go directly against man's natural tendencies...otherwise, there wouldn't be the concept of temptation or sin. Those are things that we are naturally wont to do, but fear for our eternal souls (or now, societal norms based on religious tenets) keeps us from doing it.Braddock wrote:
Which are largely based on common sense, no? All you have to do is take out the guy with the beard and the red guy with the horns.FEOS wrote:
Ironic post is ironic.Braddock wrote:
I have my own way of contemplating the universe and my own set of morals (largely shaped by a combination of what is deemed socially acceptable in Western society and my own philosophical insights)
You do realize that "what is deemed socially acceptable in Western society" is based largely on religious precepts, don't you?
I personally believe that religion followed the natural order of man and not the other way around. You can even see order in animal societies and they don't have religion. Religion just provides a fancy way of explaining it.
Of course, there are other aspects of religion that have been used to lend supernatural involvement to what we now know are natural processes, but that has nothing to do with human behavior.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Religion is entirely man made. In order to draw mankind out of selfish barbarism and to create a society/community humanity developed religion as the forerunner of 'the social contract' or modern politics. Religion was 'common sense' in the sense that by curbing certain natural instincts one could collectively function more efficiently than as stand-alone hunter-gatherers. The societal norms that were developed are instilled in the next generation through education. The dogma religion has picked up along the way is frivolous and serves more harm than good these days it would seem. The fact that religions are very static and rigid and have difficulty adapting to new realities is also a major flaw.FEOS wrote:
Many tenets of religion go directly against man's natural tendencies...otherwise, there wouldn't be the concept of temptation or sin. Those are things that we are naturally wont to do, but fear for our eternal souls (or now, societal norms based on religious tenets) keeps us from doing it.
Of course, there are other aspects of religion that have been used to lend supernatural involvement to what we now know are natural processes, but that has nothing to do with human behavior.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-15 02:18:38)
The only reason religion's really around is because people are afraid of death and there being "nothing" after they die.
And this is coming from someone who is indeed religious, although not much.
If humans could live forever, I doubt religion would have ever taken off like it has.
And this is coming from someone who is indeed religious, although not much.
If humans could live forever, I doubt religion would have ever taken off like it has.
Chicken and egg.CameronPoe wrote:
Religion is entirely man made. In order to draw mankind out of selfish barbarism and to create a society/community humanity developed religion as the forerunner of 'the social contract' or modern politics. Religion was 'common sense' in the sense that by curbing certain natural instincts one could collectively function more efficiently than as stand-alone hunter-gatherers. The societal norms that were developed are instilled in the next generation through education. The dogma religion has picked up along the way is frivolous and serves more harm than good these days it would seem. The fact that religions are very static and rigid and have difficulty adapting to new realities is also a major flaw.FEOS wrote:
Many tenets of religion go directly against man's natural tendencies...otherwise, there wouldn't be the concept of temptation or sin. Those are things that we are naturally wont to do, but fear for our eternal souls (or now, societal norms based on religious tenets) keeps us from doing it.
Of course, there are other aspects of religion that have been used to lend supernatural involvement to what we now know are natural processes, but that has nothing to do with human behavior.
Some theorize that man didn't start organizing out of barbarism and hunter-gatherer situations until he started seeing a supernatural power that controlled his life. Bad things would happen, and it would be viewed as punishment from the supernatural for some offense. The change in behavior that corrected the bad thing (thereby not repeating it) was viewed as pleasing to the supernatural and thus became a standard behavior.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Except for some reason the 'chicken' has chosen never to explicitly show himself over the entire course of human history, instead choosing to play a cat and mouse game of 'peek-a-boo' with individuals who never have reliable witnesses nearby to back up what they have seen or experienced. Man has always been superstitious, it's the way in which the human mind attempts to make sense of events and situations that are often totally random and religion is an extension of this.FEOS wrote:
Chicken and egg.CameronPoe wrote:
Religion is entirely man made. In order to draw mankind out of selfish barbarism and to create a society/community humanity developed religion as the forerunner of 'the social contract' or modern politics. Religion was 'common sense' in the sense that by curbing certain natural instincts one could collectively function more efficiently than as stand-alone hunter-gatherers. The societal norms that were developed are instilled in the next generation through education. The dogma religion has picked up along the way is frivolous and serves more harm than good these days it would seem. The fact that religions are very static and rigid and have difficulty adapting to new realities is also a major flaw.FEOS wrote:
Many tenets of religion go directly against man's natural tendencies...otherwise, there wouldn't be the concept of temptation or sin. Those are things that we are naturally wont to do, but fear for our eternal souls (or now, societal norms based on religious tenets) keeps us from doing it.
Of course, there are other aspects of religion that have been used to lend supernatural involvement to what we now know are natural processes, but that has nothing to do with human behavior.
Some theorize that man didn't start organizing out of barbarism and hunter-gatherer situations until he started seeing a supernatural power that controlled his life. Bad things would happen, and it would be viewed as punishment from the supernatural for some offense. The change in behavior that corrected the bad thing (thereby not repeating it) was viewed as pleasing to the supernatural and thus became a standard behavior.
Every time I visit planetarium for some public session about Big Bang ect Im laughing at all religious theories. So maybe if in Rome or in Muslim states would someone pay more attention to physics and astronomy, we wont get that excuse so much - in a name of GOD . . . !
No offence if you hold religious beliefs but I cannot agree with you here. There has never been any evidence to suggest the presence of a supernatural power, as such man had to invent and shape that concept. I can only deal in hard fact and logic. One cannot say that God is not the fabrication of man, when you're an atheist anyway. It may not have been as specifically purposeful in its origins as I put it but it certainly grew into what I described.FEOS wrote:
Chicken and egg.
Some theorize that man didn't start organizing out of barbarism and hunter-gatherer situations until he started seeing a supernatural power that controlled his life. Bad things would happen, and it would be viewed as punishment from the supernatural for some offense. The change in behavior that corrected the bad thing (thereby not repeating it) was viewed as pleasing to the supernatural and thus became a standard behavior.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-15 05:06:43)