TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Religion
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

What can be said? There's absolutely no doubt that there are a great deal of people in the world who function far better in society when they are told what to say, do, and think.

But that does nothing to further the argument for, or against, the existence of a God. However, it certainly validates the existence of religion.

quote:

Originally posted by chach Well then he did and it was for the better, and I'm glad because otherwise he would've never met my mom and had me There is plenty of things that are miracles that go into my dads salvation. For example Colombia has a strict 3 strikes policy. The third time he went to jail he should have been put away for good, but through a "mistake" he was released. A week later he got saved through a pastor my godfather now. What he describes and what most as a specific calling. He wrote a book and its published. In spanish though lol

It doesn't hold water for me, sorry mate. Extremely lucky, sure. Miraculous, not so much.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...66&pagenumber=1

Some interesting thoughts and arguments here...

quote:

Originally posted by chach That's a very humanistic approach/outlook on the situation.

Are you suggesting religion is irreconcilable with humanism?

Re: Religion

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby ...only serves to shackle the masses and create a protected class. It is the opiate of the people and is just a fixed fantasy that can only slow down the expansion and extension of the human race. It is the cancer that is killing us.

...and that' s supposed to be a bad a bad thing?

Re: Re: Religion

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange ...and that' s supposed to be a bad a bad thing?

I'd agree with you in that if people want to follow something I feel slights them, far be it from myself to stop them.

Too bad these people tend to run things.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Why do they need to believe in something other than themselves? If people would just give themselves the credit we would realize how much we can do. This world would probably be a better place if people just believed in themselves more. Passing responsibility off to a god, or other form of higher power is a disservice to yourself.

So i can't believe in this laptop i'm typing this on? or the table it's sitting on? It's just me floating in a vacuum and nothing other than myself? Obviously the question is rhetorical, but what I'm trying to say is that religious views of the world (which are many and extremely diverse) do not necessarily imply an evasion of personal responsibility or a lack of belief in oneself.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby He did do it all on his own, and now instead of being involved in criminal activities he is using a crutch. He has picked up and developed a mental disorder to help his life. It can be used for good, but it is still a mental disorder and for the most part is one that is fairly destructive.

I wouldn't classify it as a mental disorder until someone claimed to physically hear god talking back to them.

But that aside, just to clarify are you saying his faith has been destructive in his specific case or more generally that religion has been a fairly destructive force historically?

You cannot deny that religion is largely marketed as a big self-help doctrine. It's most successful that way. Religion primarily began as a systematic transmission of taboos from one generation to the next - a meme in nature that lends itself to a formidable word-of-mouth association - so of course anecdotal relations are probably going to be primarily positive and appeal to the self, were it not, you probably would not know about it.

God requires belief though - the notion of anything imperceptible requires some semblance of faith. Your laptop - your desk - these things can be sensed in a universal fashion: I can see, touch, feel, taste, etc. such items - I do not need faith to know that they exist. God, however, cannot be sensed in our conventional methods - or at least the sensory ones.

Now is where someone religious comes in to let me know that *they* can see, smell, taste, feel and hear God at all times - because he is real - and because they have faith and I do not. The problem was me all along!

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On You cannot deny that religion is largely marketed as a big self-help doctrine. It's most successful that way. Religion primarily began as a systematic transmission of taboos from one generation to the next - a meme in nature that lends itself to a formidable word-of-mouth association - so of course anecdotal relations are probably going to be primarily positive and appeal to the self, were it not, you probably would not know about it.

This is speculative since the formation of religious practice is prehistoric. I would say Religion began when man became self aware and started questioning why things happened the way they did. In most cases he was ill-equipped to answer these questions correctly, the taboos that were later passed on orally emerged from this questioning. This subsequently this gave birth to philosophy which in turn gave rise to science.

What is important to remember is that it started with an attitude of "questioning" which remains at the heart of science, true philosophy and true religious thought (ie that which remains untainted by existential bad faith).

The approach of religion as a set of rules that are to be accepted without question and followed blindly are a product of human nature. The same phenomena - a well-intentioned philosophy overtaken by power-hungry politicians and used to their own ends, often to justify actions contrary to the original philosophy - applied to communism as it was practiced in the USSR (or is currently practiced in North Korea). I think McCarthyism in the US was an example of a similar phenomenon.

Unfortunately most people want their lives to be morally simple. They want someone to tell them what's right and wrong rather than having to choose for themselves. An on the other side of the coin will always be people who will want to gain power by controlling an ideology and it's dominant meanings (read Foucault on this - one of the most practically applicable philosophers).

quote:

God requires belief though - the notion of anything imperceptible requires some semblance of faith. Your laptop - your desk - these things can be sensed in a universal fashion: I can see, touch, feel, taste, etc. such items - I do not need faith to know that they exist. God, however, cannot be sensed in our conventional methods - or at least the sensory ones.

In the post I quoted you seemed to imply a dichotomy between belief in a god and belief in self. You suggested that a belief in something other than oneself lessened a belief in oneself.

I'm not going to get into whether one can objectively observe the existance of oneself.. but that certainly is an interesting question.

But secondly you're suggesting that all religions require belief in a deity.. which is also not true.

quote:

Now is where someone religious comes in to let me know that *they* can see, smell, taste, feel and hear God at all times - because he is real - and because they have faith and I do not. The problem was me all along!

Idiots make up most of humanity, and I have no reason to believe that intelligent life anywhere else is any different. As far as I'm concerned the universe consists of mostly hydrogen and ignorance. If someone replies stupidly to your post it will be more a symptom of humanity rather than their religiosity imho.

Who the fuck deleted my post?

I disagree with the original post entirely, being Unitarian Universalist, I fail to see how me having a belief, and an organized religion makes me immediately a puppet of that religion. Granted my religion is pretty loose in its beliefs, it's still a religion. Religion itself is not the opiate of the masses. Fear and a lack of a want to understand is what causes people to not progress.

quote:

Originally posted by Audious Religion itself is not the opiate of the masses. Fear and a lack of a want to understand is what causes people to not progress.

Being the exact thing that religion instills in its followers

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy This is speculative since the formation of religious practice is prehistoric. I would say Religion began when man became self aware and started questioning why things happened the way they did. In most cases he was ill-equipped to answer these questions correctly, the taboos that were later passed on orally emerged from this questioning. This subsequently this gave birth to philosophy which in turn gave rise to science. What is important to remember is that it started with an attitude of "questioning" which remains at the heart of science, true philosophy and true religious thought (ie that which remains untainted by existential bad faith).

Perhaps it began as a questioning (one that has yet to truly be resolved, as evident by all of the various religions of the world) but I would argue that it continued as an opportunity for social leverage. That is the nature of most every law, and laws are what constitute any organized religion.

quote:

The approach of religion as a set of rules that are to be accepted without question and followed blindly are a product of human nature. The same phenomena - a well-intentioned philosophy overtaken by power-hungry politicians and used to their own ends, often to justify actions contrary to the original philosophy - applied to communism as it was practiced in the USSR (or is currently practiced in North Korea). I think McCarthyism in the US was an example of a similar phenomenon.

The execution and subsequent consequence for these laws is human nature - but the laws, themselves, are more often than not the edict of the given deity or at least "channeled" though said deity's representative(s) on Earth. Of course that depends on the religion, though.

quote:

Unfortunately most people want their lives to be morally simple. They want someone to tell them what's right and wrong rather than having to choose for themselves. An on the other side of the coin will always be people who will want to gain power by controlling an ideology and it's dominant meanings (read Foucault on this - one of the most practically applicable philosophers).

I cannot disagree with you here. But when it comes time for our exemption of religion as the fault of its followers, what justification can we have in indicting the individuals of any given organization over the "core beliefs" or whatnot of a dogma? When people give in to an ideology, in my opinion, they are making a clear statement that they wish to be married to that ideal - through better or worse, it is the path you have chosen. Why can people suddenly pick and choose what it is they are held responsible for?

We sort of touched on this in the PDD thread that I linked. It seems as though some believe that the faults of religion lie within its members - not the religion, itself. If the liability for one's actions can be so easily transposed between individual and group, though, to what end do we place power in the hands of ANY organization? It seems to me that if you deny that people must share responsibility of the organization they identify themselves with, you are detracting from the evident leverage that organization exerts - something quite undeniable when it comes to major religious forces in our world, I think.

quote:

In the post I quoted you seemed to imply a dichotomy between belief in a god and belief in self. You suggested that a belief in something other than oneself lessened a belief in oneself. I'm not going to get into whether one can objectively observe the existance of oneself.. but that certainly is an interesting question.

If I was implying anything, it was a dichotomy between the self and sensation. My point was that belief and disbelief have little to no bearing upon the existence of a thing, unless it is entirely a perceptual phenomenon (such as the existence of God, itself, not the belief in such).

quote:

But secondly you're suggesting that all religions require belief in a deity.. which is also not true.

Though this is true, you could easily equate belief in a deity with belief in a great deal of other things as well. Point being that belief is an emotional inference as to the existence of something that cannot be unanimously sensed... but even that brings us into the dicey territory of contemplating the *true* existence of your desk.

quote:

Idiots make up most of humanity, and I have no reason to believe that intelligent life anywhere else is any different. As far as I'm concerned the universe consists of mostly hydrogen and ignorance. If someone replies stupidly to your post it will be more a symptom of humanity rather than their religiosity imho.

It is not humanity that is innately stupid though - and where are you getting your comparisons? We like to drum up our "humanism" because we are infatuated with it, but every animal is probably really fucking stupid, and since I have no faith in a God in the sky, we're as good as sentience gets for now. Despairing as that may be.

To sort of continue from a previous point though, I have always found it interesting that people most readily compare religion with science. It's fairly obvious that they both have their places in our world, and some can argue to either divorce or reconcile these notions, but their comparisons always seem to leave out one enormous factor: fiction.

If there is such a thing as humanism (I know it's a term; not what I meant), it exists in the finely-woven threads of any good yarn. Indeed, history itself was transmitted in the same way that religion was - the oral dynamic was a method for thousands of years for imparting laws and ways upon people, enlightening them to the "truth" of religious or even secular existences. You could equate this as a sort of proto-media in that the flow of collective knowledge was tightly controlled by the confines of communication, but I am not sure where that argument could possibly start, much less end. The relativity of "myth" is quite underrated, however. Tired point as it may be, people used to be burned at the stake for speaking ill of Thor - and just why is that so ridiculous now, but not then? Because people love fiction - they are fascinated by it, there has always been a imperative within culture to purposely fabricate a sort of simulacrum of true existence (such as statues and paintings) or a textual parable or story (as in books, scrolls, cave-paintings). But are any of these real in the same way that God is? Possibly. True, artistic items can be touched - seen - felt - but they come with a higher concept than their representative package in our material existence. Is it analysis and pragmatism that necessitates art in our society - or is it something more whimsical and imaginative in us that impels people to express their selves and beliefs, and likewise delight in those communicated by others?

The difference between fiction and religion is a gulf of faith. I can enjoy things that are not real - you could even say that I can have a love for art that could be described as "religious". But do I believe in the existence of those higher ideals art may represent? Do I have to? They are merely expressions - my interpretations are about as real as it gets, I need no faith for art to live to its full potential. The prospects of religion, however, entirely hinge on one's faith that what they are doing has meaning, has purpose, has some sort of utility - and I am not even talking about reward, I am speaking of confirmation. And what conviction could kill the worth in fiction more than the viciousness of righteousness and the means to exact "truth" on others? Perhaps it is not people, nor religion that are at fault for conflict - but belief, itself?

Just the same, where would we be without that tiny shred of belief that what we enjoy through our senses confirms our existence? I mean, really - have you ever felt more "real" than when you've induced a sort of "high" thorough most any means? It is reality that gives benefit to lies. The fortitude of an individual, at least in my stupid little opinion, relies upon one's ability to both separate and devour those things which make him feel like less of a lie. Belief merely obfuscates this.

VERBOSITALITY!!!!!

God is dead.

Terse enough for you?

quote:

re⋅li⋅gion [ri-lij-uhn] noun.: Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience.

It's funny how in threads like these, the atheists are so passionate to loudly disagree with various faiths and religions, they themselves end up falling into the definition of religion.

How fucking ironic.

I am neither devoted to atheism nor am I even an atheist, but you couldn't possibly be talking to one such as myself, could you?

I dunno about you personally man, but the way I see it one either believes in the existence of something, or if one chooses not to believe in it then they are in fact believing in the nonexistance of it.

Kinda bakes your noodle if you think about it deep enough.

quote:

Originally posted by aquila2 how passionately do you believe in what you choose to believe?

First off, since you are so high on quoting definitions for us, why don't you go look up irony and think about what you've done.

Secondly, passion and beliefs are two entirely different concepts. I can be passionate about anything I want, but if I do not vest faith (belief) in these things, the only ones that would probably suffer are belief in religion and patriotism. Make no mistake that belief is violence and an abandoning of elegance - it is brute force demanding tribute of the ego. Nothing worthwhile demands as such.

If your point is that a collection of ideas an individual holds true by observation or education to constitute beliefs, then somebody open to reasonable suggestion could hardly be considered a "believer" in any sense of the word.

You think I am trying to persuade people to buy what I'm selling? I merely would like to see everybody else's wares - make sure my inventory is up to date.

But please, proceed. I have a feeling this is going to be good.

quote:

Originally posted by aquila2 I dunno about you personally man, but the way I see it one either believes in the existence of something, or if one chooses not to believe in it then they are in fact believing in the nonexistance of it. Kinda bakes your noodle if you think about it deep enough.

OR, one can merely deny the existence of something for which there is no actual evidence to believe, thereby establishing a deconstructive value to their criticism. Wow, hey - that takes no belief in the righteousness of your course whatsoever, it merely serves to put loony fuckers who make shit up in their place!

Dude, don't think I'm attacking you personally. So please don't get defensive. I am merely marvelling at some of the things that have been said here and how 'religious' they sound.

hugs?

i didn't read the thread, but i like this quote:

"religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful"

what

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Being the exact thing that religion instills in its followers

I still disagree entirely. I've never ran into anything where I've said, "Oh, my religion says don't do this."

That's like saying "Law is the opiate of the masses." I think what you're trying to say is, "Judeo-Christian religions are the opiate of the masses." Which even then is not true. It may be true for larger-scale denominations and religions such as Catholicism, Islam and Judaism, but there are plenty denominations that are more than open to a lot more things than the big denominations. So to say "Religion is the opiate of the masses," is flawed. I believe in a higher being, I don't believe it watches us or sends us to hell for being gay, or saves us for praying. Religion isn't always intended to be the commanding force in someone's life.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.