Yeah, but Hitler killed Jews because their ethnicity, not their religion.
Stalin and Mao were both atheist fanatics…were they dangerous?
edit- What do Matt, cba etc think about non-theistic relgions such as Taoism and Buddhism (though not all Buddhist lineages are non-theistic)?
What?
I’m not saying they weren’t. I’m saying religious fanatics have a reputation for burning people.
I enjoy the philisophical aspects of all religions. I think that they’ve all had their productive aspects as well as their negative qualities just like most everything else. Non-theistic religions don’t bother me. I prefer dealing with people from those religions more only because from past experiences I’ve felt like I was being persecuted by people who practice theistic religions. I try not to have biases but wtf can I say? Most theistic religious folk that I’ve met are assholes.
Religion, politics, beliefs etc are all just being used as excuses to write proppaganda (can’t spell 
) to influence people that murder is good/to go out and kill people. The majority of religious fanatics haven’t even read a Bible/Koran etc. I haven’t studied many religious books but I know that the Bible is anti-murder and the majority of other religious texts are.
I am in accord. I might go even as far as to say that the majority of religions support life. It would make sense - the people that founded religions were probably trying to figure out “the meaning of life.”
Or, ironically, in reaction to the atrocities of life, the certainty of death, and with resentment to this world.
I hardly believe that religion was created for a celebration of life. I believe that it was founded in fear, anxiety, and confusion pertaining to life.
Life contains fear, anxiety, and confusion. Therefore in an attempt to decipher its meaning one would have to face these things.
I do not know whether religions were created in celebration of life. The fundamental philosophy of the majority of religious dogmas at the very least embrace life. For instance, Buddhism sees this life as a journey of suffering, but it doesn’t suggest suicide.
Perhaps we have two different definitions of life. I am talking about the state of being alive. It may be that you are referring to the series of events that make up a life.
I have a friend who once received two Mormon would-be proselytizers. He told them about how Mormons could treat black people better, treat women with equal respect, and similiar advice. He even had them write notes to take back to their elders. Perhaps i should try this tact. My friend is a secular humanist.
Don’t know all that much about them to be honest.
Is my previous post on the 21st of Dec invisible to everyone? I thought I’d get at least a few insults from religious types. I also put across my counter arguments to Metavoid far more eloquently than the feeble attempts afterwards. Oh well, one can lead a horse to water and all that. I was rather pleased with the fanatical stamp collector point.
M McD, I suppose it’s because they feel obliged to do that.
It;'s a double edged sword they feel that they are saving you if they convert you, hence they should try their best even on Xmas day. But as a human to a human, it’s quite insulting.
From the little I know about Jehovous Witnesses wouldn’t wishing happy holidays with the sense of enjoyment and lack of traditional holy-day meaning be even more offensive than merry christmas?
hey matt!
i read your post. if you are expressing resentment in the mindless following of a movement, then i agree with you. this mob-mentality is a huge threat to the world, and determinetal to the individual – this is the point of all philosophy.
as there are reasons to not believe in god, they are reasons to believe in god. either choice, it seems to me, requires a leap that is no one’s decision but the individual.
yes, i’ll agree with this.
I just wanted to have a paddy. I could have pretended twas my b’day and I could cry if I wanted to, but twas two days ago.
It’s ironic how the word “wind” is synonymous with trendy and nothing.
Hi,
I’m new here but I have read through a lot of what has already been written. I think that there are plenty of reasons for anti-religious sentiment - even though I regard myself as being “religious”.
It is all quite simple really, but we seem to miss it all the same. Religion is a method of interpreting the world in a non-scientific manner. Since the so-called “Age of Enlightenment” and especially since humanistic teaching methods have been adopted, we all tend to mix the two, which doesn’t work.
It is the same as using literature to explain a phenomena of human behaviour. If you are open for what literature can impart, then that’s fine, but it won’t do for a scientific disquisition.
We need to find out what we are trying to prove when discussing Religion. If we are trying to “prove” God, well sorry, I can’t subscribe. If we are arguing human experience with inexplicable phenomena, then I can communicate.
Religion also has several levels. We can approach the subject from a level of emotional historicity, from a level of interpretation of occurences, from the level of apologetics etc. Religion is really the emotional translation of real human experience.
Anti-religious sentiments are justified if we mix the apples and pears, if we jumble up the discussion, or if we use religious enlightenment as a basis for political aims (e.g. the present American administration). That is where things become dangerous and the confrontation between opposing fundamentalist groups become unavoidable.
I believe in Christ as the opposite to the Roman Emperor - as it were the anti-caesar - and as the personified or the true nature of wisdom. I believe that all Powerpolitics, whoever is pushing the pieces on the board, are doomed to a short life (taking many lives with them). I believe that the hypothesis “God” is substantiated in Christ’s life and death, and in the subsequent faith in his resurrection.
But I also understand the Jews, who hold on to their waiting for the Messiach; the Muslims who regard Judaismus and Chritianity to have failed; the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Taoists and whoever else is out there. The reason is this: God cannot be anything but universal, and I cannot be anything but ignorant to the miriad of ways that divine wisdom takes. Who am I to say that my faith is superior to others?
I see I have written rather a lot for a beginner. Please excuse me.
Shalom
Bob
Welcome aboard, Bob. You’ll make an excellent addition to this lively bunch.
This specific statement caught my eye and I’d like to give you some of my ideas concerning it.
What I really liked was your admission that religion doesn’t support any “proof” for the existence of a “god.” However, what I do not understand is how you would believe that “inexplicable phenomena” serves as some kind of evidence for proving what religion cannot. It seems that you might subscribe to the notion that “proof” is a very scientific and logical affair, which, indeed it is, yet when faced with some phenomena that isn’t explained “scientifically,” you might want to say that it cannot be explained, and that this failure is some necessary proof for an experience that is neither “scientific” or “logical.”
To give you an example of what I mean, consider a primitive man’s experience of a thunder storm. For him, the experience is very real, but the phenomena of a bolt of lightening is “inexplicable” because, without the means of science, he has no way to explain it, it’s origins, it’s reason for striking, etc., etc. He will then interpret the phenomena as “supernatural” and might likely attribute it to some kind of “divine” intervention, being caused by something above and beyond his worldy experience. Then, a thousand years later, through the use of scientific technology, the lightening is discovered to be electricity, and there is no longer a need to attribute the phenomena to some supernatural event.
Likewise, as Nietzsche mentioned, a primitive man might have a dream in which he interacts with a dead relative. Upon waking, he might propose to the others that “the dead live on, for I have seen them in my dreams.” This experience would be the origins of what we now call “metaphysics,” and it would introduce a facet of experience that could not be interperated in terms of “explicable phenomena,” giving rise to various mysticisms, religions, and other types of dogmatic assertions. And, of course, now we can regard dreams as quite natural brain activity that occurs while we are sleeping, so we no longer invest much belief in the possibility that one enters into “another world” where “spirits” reside, etc., which would be the common tenents of these primitive dualisms and mysticisms.
Another “inexplicable phenomena” we have heard of is in the experiences of people who have been pronounced dead. Many, when revived, claim to have seen a “tunnel” of light. Today scientists say that this is the result of optical nerves shutting down in such a way that causes one’s peripheral vision to diminish, making one’s last visions appear to be “tunnel” of light surrounded by darkness.
And, of course, we’ve heard tales of psychic prediction, clairvoyance, telekinesis, faith healing, so on and so forth. My concern is that these events, and I’m not saying they can’t happen, aren’t any more “proof” of a supernatural or devine experience then the lightening or the dream. They are only more ordinary natural phenomena that hasn’t yet been explained by science.
You see, Bob, I don’t think it is possible to interpret the world in a non-scientific manner. If there is any interpretation going on whatsoever, it will involve elements that can very well be explained by logic and/or physics(physical sciences). If they are not yet explained in such a way, I see no reason to believe that they escape the possibility of being explained.
I agree completely. But I also believe that “emotion” and human psychology can be understood through science, and specifically through a discipline known as Phenomenology(Husserl).
Really, religion is a set of organized principles and fundamentals that are practiced by groups of people. The validity of these things isn’t important because the practice itself involves “beliefs,” which are synonomous with ignorance, and which is completely different from matters of science and logic.
Please feel free to raise any objections or clear up any misunderstandings I might have had with your post.
Good to have ya,’ Bob.
Hi de’trop,
Well I don’t actually, I missed a word out of what I should have written: “If we are arguing human experience with rationally inexplicable phenomena, then I can communicate.”
You see, I don’t believe that there is a rational explanation for everything. You have quoted the common example with the thunderbolt, I could quote the example of love being not proveable, other than in the actions we witness (Love is a “doing-word”- Erich Fromm).
The Gospels and the Epistels are for me the work of people trying to pass on an experience, not the attempt to prove things in the way we would today, or indeed as we would be told. They pass it on combined with their interpretation of scripture, which is meant to show that it is all within the boundaries of prophecy - this being an important must for any acceptance within a jewish society.
It reminds me of a passage that James Carroll wrote in his book about mourning for a dear friend, how he and the group of mourners gathered in the way they had when their friend was with them, how they remembered the experiences they had had together, how they sang songs they had sung together, and how a lasting memory grew, perhaps larger than life. Knowing the jewish tradition with the psalms and tenach, the experience of the apostles could have been a similar kind of affair.
The emotional translation of experiences in this way provides a way ahead, and when an assurance rises within people, combined with possible hysteria and perhaps even manipulation (on the side of the authorities) - you have an effect that can change the flow of things. These are all things that in an effective combination present the facts somewhat differently than a scientific investigation might.
Reality is what becomes real for people, what moves them, spurns them on, gives them hope. It was the hope of the early Christians that left the authorities speechless. I believe that this hope ignited the faith that Christ looked for amongst his people, faith that can move mountains.
I would hope that science isn’t into interpretation but into objective proof. When I say interpretation, I mean the way that wisdom grows. The way that street-orphans become “streetwise”. There is enough human experience in the world to fill volumes of Wisdom - some of it (perhaps a lot of it) lost through the ignorance of “civilised” nations, bungling about as Colonials…
This kind of wisdom is different to science, it lacks the “proof” of empirical assessment, but has the knowledge of generations. There are so many aspects of life that we have yet to scientifically assess, that it is good that we have good old wisdom to lean on 
Have to close now, but I’ll be back
Shalom
Bob
Bob said
Cba1067950 said
Why aren’t children simply taught the golden rule (which predates Christ) and a few other odds and ends in order to get along with other people and allowed to choose on their own?
This is the same thing as saying evidence for the existence of a “god” is the fact that human experience isn’t rational. Then it might seem like our idea of “god” is irrational as well, if our ideas involve our experiences which aren’t rational. We would end up with a self refuting proposition.
I still see no reason to say because all experiences can’t be explained- God necessarily exists. That would seem to complicate things and make them more complex then they really are. What’s that fella’s name…“Okham?” The guy with the razor. (suddenly, Rafajafar appears spontaneously and posts the correct spelling, and a brief introduction)
I don’t see how this is so important though. Passing stories through tradition from generation to generation has a social and historical value, but why is that so great?
Prophecy is future seeing. If you can prove that events happen that are exactly the events that are forseen to happen, then you’ve got some cutting edge science, pal, let me be your manager.
Are you saying that not only is experience irrational, there IS a God and part of the evidence of this is the fact that events happen that have been claimed to be forseen?
We need to stop for a moment and agree on some definitions for these new terms and words and how they would relate. What is “wisdom?” Is it a type of knowledge? Ya’ know, I think I’ve used that word exactly twice in my life. It’s just a polished version of knowledge, made for story telling and fortune cookies. Sure, I’d use it in a narration or something, but would never feel the need to introduce it into my vocabulary(bleak at that).
I am interested in this. Please elaborate.
Why is that such a wonderful fact?
I don’t really know what you mean here.
You know what I like to do, Bob? When I spend more than thirty minutes discussing “religion” and “god” with someone, I like to cut to the chase. What we are really asking is “what happens when we die.” If we were to disembody and rise above as a spirit fully conscious and eternally “alive,” we’d answer a whole lot of our questions. Still, there you are…what now?
I am a very sad, selfish and secretly depressed person who doesn’t want to die, doesn’t want you to die, and doesn’t want the star to grow cold. What boggles my mind is that nobody else seems to really fret over what I consider a legitimate existential absurdity. I don’t even need to go further than to ask why is it even possible for it to be so. Obviously a brick doesn’t dislodge itself from a roof on the occasion of a passing man, slide down the tin, and plop a man dead, every day, but that’s not a point I think I need to defend myself from. It is just the possibility that that can happen that I place myself in that mans shoes and ask the questions we ask here. Forget about it, I don’t even need to consider war, natural disaster, disease, famine, poverty, etc. We don’t have to mention those things to make the point, right, because it is that man’s experience and welt on the head that we are dealing with. He tells a different story, he is as real of an experience as we are an experience of our own.
But this is just pouting.
I have considered some very radical “philsophical/scientific” ideas regarding “God” that far surpass what content the Bible might offer. As I see you make various references to tradition and its lore value, as well as religious literature, I’m not quick to react and feel like I need to defend my previous stance.
Aside from a few new words being intrduced; wisdom, interpretation, objective, irrational,; we’ve done nothing more than gotten farther from what we are really trying to ask and “proof,” if indeed there is, a “god.”
My point is that such a concept doesn’t even qualify logically, it needn’t be sure it made sense to me, it doesn’t even get that far. What I believe is so utterly simple, anything more than that evokes my suspicion. I also say that there is a great distinction between knowledge and belief, so I don’t run ahead and try to accept things I haven’t experienced myself. I am skeptical of all theistic religion. I’m sorry.
Especially in matters of “God,” because I would at least like to be sure that God was aware of that brick, that man, and the explaination he’d better have ready when the dude shows up wanting answers. This is tactless and rude. Whether it is metaphysically or ontologically possible that a God exists and we are here talking about him, makes no difference to me at this point. The concept is reckless, clumsy, and remains only a desperate belief in a God I would certainly hope didn’t exist. I could absolutely never be able to justify all the suffering, violence, struggle, and failure in the world no matter what I wanted to “belief” in, so any concept I could have of God would be very critical and weary.
The burden is ours, Bob, I’d like to think. This would give me something to do in this otherwise boring existence. To bear it.
I was too lazy, really. I think what you fail to realise is the dual nature of religion - it, like most human institutions and activities, has done good things as well as bad.
Hi Marshall,
If I seemed to make that case I apologise. I am ecumenical-minded because I believe that what we call “God†is one, but that our concepts of what we mean by that are many. Your know the story about the blind men around the elephant … I believe that human experience is much the same where ever you may be. We just present our experiences from different perspectives.
Yes, I have to confess that I didn’t think it up myself. I think that there are so many archetypes in the Bible alone. And watching people generally, there is a lot to say for “types†of people, even though their interweaving is extremely complex. In my job I get to assess psychiatric disorders a lot – mainly of older people – because we have no resident Doctor and the Neurologists rely upon our diagnostic abilities. I think we look for archetypes for security and latch on to them when we feel secure. That would explain why Religion has used them effectively as well.
I agree, but we have to use what we have to assess our situation. I am “Religious†because I believe in a semblance of order and see it even in the chaos we believe we see. Indeed, I think that the chaotic influence in this world comes from human beings – even though we often think it is the other way around. Whatever put the order into the micro- and macro-cosmos is what made my life possible – and thanking “God†is what Religion is essentially is about.
Shalom
Bob
Hi de’trop,
Perhaps I’m not looking for evidence for the existence of a “godâ€. I sometimes think that using these words and expressions immediately clogs up our ability to differentiate. Our rationality is always trying to reason, or to make sense of things. It isn’t even something we can control. The brain is always working overtime -even in brains we wouldn’t think capable – to rationalise and find security.
I like to use Maslow’s hierarchical theory of human needs to show how we’re always looking for the next step up in life:
Life begins with Physiological needs. These are biological such as the need of oxygen, food, water, and a relatively constant body temperature. If we were deprived of these things, death would be inevitable.
We go on to look for Safety. As Adults we are rarely aware of our need for security, except perhaps in times of emergency or periods of disorganisation in the social structure. But actually, it isn’t just children who often display signs of insecurity and their need to be safe.
The need of Love, Affection and a sense of Belonging grows on us with puberty. People normally need to escape feelings of loneliness and alienation and give (and receive) love, affection and the sense of belonging.
The need for Esteem grows with experience. People require a stable, firmly based, high level of self-respect, and respect from others in order to feel satisfied, self confident and valuable. The only alternative is feeling inferior, weak, helpless and worthless.
An ongoing process that brings out the best in human beings is what Maslow calls self-actualisation. People who achieve this are involved in a cause other than themselves. They are devoted, working hard at something, they may have the feeling of some calling or vocation in the old sense - the priestly sense.
I like to believe that this is also the way people move through life towards fulfilment – something that far too many do not achieve. In this sense, Religion is about life and fulfilment, not proof of God. God is to be seen as the prime-cause that makes it possible and is assumed, more than proven. That is why experiences supporting this assumption and that are not rationally explainable are ascribed to a divine entity.
There was healing power in stories and perhaps one of the reasons why we have stopped advancing spiritually is because we don’t tell stories in our social groups anymore. Perhaps we have become so “enlightened†that we think that psychosomatic complaints are one of the many ailments that life brings with it. I believe that we are weakening because we have lost the “primitive†aspects of life that makes people healthy.
I think that prophecy can be “saying things beforeâ€, or a “saying forth of things†– if you get my meaning. Prophecy in the Old Testament is very often a “saying forth of things†that need to be said. John the Baptist was a prophet, but one that couldn’t keep himself from revealing the moral decadence of Herod. When punishing Christ the guards made fun of Christ by telling him to prophecy who hit him – an example of what prophecy is not.
Wisdom is the combination of experience and knowledge in critical or practical application. Some say it is common sense – though few adopt such “common†sense. The literature of wisdom is very often full of things that we all agree to, but seldom adhere to.
Streetwise is the strategy of survival with the least of means, with little knowledge and bad experience as the basis of successfully surviving. It is a collection of “truths†that are viable in a particular situation, but not universally practicable. The kids learn to survive, even begin their own subculture, but it is very often the rule of the strongest. They very often fail in larger society.
That is generally what I meant when I wrote: This kind of wisdom is different to science, it lacks the “proof” of empirical assessment, but has the knowledge of generations.
Shalom
Bob