Religion vs. Religion

[Reaper]

I find it kinda funny and sad that some people think that just because millions of people take their religion seriously, then it must be respected.

 

Never forget that millions of people also once believed that the world was flat, and also held this belief without any evidence whatsoever (if the historical records are to be believed, evidence that the world was NOT flat was quite very obvious...)

[Reaper]

We know! Its painfully obvious! :evil:

 

You do not lead by hitting people over the head-that's assault, not leadership, :)

Buffy

 

Well, actually, that really is one of the ways to effectively lead. As a leader, one must show that they are absolutely serious about their convictions.

[InfiniteNow]

Thanks for the support, Reaper. More specific to Buffy's point, though... I'm not here looking for a flock of mindless zombies to follow me around like sheep.

 

The truth of my comments remains, regardless if someone subjectively labels me as a "good" or "bad" leader.

[Reaper]

More specific to Buffy's point, though... I'm not here looking for a flock of mindless zombies to follow me around like sheep.

 

That's going to be very difficult to do with atheists :) .

[Southtown]

The truth of my comments remains, regardless if someone subjectively labels me as a "good" or "bad" leader.

Your subsequent characterizations of religion lead me to question the objectiveness of your (empirical) ethics.

[Galapagos]

As much as it pains me to tell you, my path is the one that the world will ultimately follow. Just as Thor and Zeus and Apollo are seen as misguided relics from long dead cultures, so too will the gods and religions of today.

 

Community is powerful and necessary. I only argue in favor of grouping our communities on principles supported by reality and empiricism. It's long past time to release the fairy tales of our tribal ancestors and for us to collectively move ourselves into and through the next enlightenment.

 

I couldn't agree with you more INow. :coffee_n_pc: I think Kant said it best:

Kant's "What Is Enlightenment"

"But that the public should enlighten itself is more likely; indeed, if it is only allowed freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable. For even among the entrenched guardians of the great masses a few will always think for themselves, a few who, after having themselves thrown off the yoke of immaturity, will spread the spirit of a rational appreciation for both their own worth and for each person's calling to think for himself."

[InfiniteNow]

Your subsequent characterizations of religion lead me to question the objectiveness of your (empirical) ethics.

 

I never claimed to be objective, only correct.

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at evolution, religious practice have been prevalent since the beginning of human civilization. That is a lot of behavioral programming. The odds are it is part of the brain, like a type of social instinct. If one does not believe in a divine type god, one's unconscious mind projects the same affect onto substitutes.

 

For example, the teen girl might substitute the long haired rock star. She will worship him along with a large following. It is the same brain affect in terms of the irrational mythological reaction. Einstein was a brilliant man who is known for his important contribution to physics. But the other 95% of the time he was a man who may have been a little odd. But the religious instinct will place him at god status for many. One can rationalize why they feel that way, just like any other religion. He has become a mythological symbol of intelligence and genius. One does not think of Einstein in terms of wiping his butt, to balance it out. Gods don't do that.

 

One can unconsciously substitute an abstract thing like political party, and fight for this idol, irrationally. It is part of that same instinct. Atheists place reason on a pedestal and see this abstraction solving the world's problems. It may do that, but it hasn't done it yet. Religion made this unconscious affect possible due to millennia of training. Each group says "my idol works better for me, therefore it is the right one for everybody." If you don't agree there is something wrong with you, so let us fight and argue. The second affect came from monotheism. The instinct has evolved to have only one top God, "there is only room in this town for one idol".

 

I like reason. It is important. But try this experiment at home to prove it really is a secondary support affect. Find an area of knowledge you know little about, so you can't just parrot another person's reason. Deduce how this area of knowledge works. The way the process normally works, in new areas, is imagination and inspiration come first, then you go back and try to find reasons to support and justify. When you write it up, you present it logically, for the audience, and they think you reasoned it through. If you try to do it yourself, new idea do not stem from reason but inspiration. Reading presents it the other way around. Reason belongs on a pedestal but it may be a little high based on these reasons. That is due to the idol affect. A higher level idol will inspire so it can lead reason.

[InfiniteNow]

If you look at evolution, religious practice have been prevalent since the beginning of human civilization. That is a lot of behavioral programming.

 

I stopped reading there, because you were already wrong twice. Religion has not been prevalent in all cultures since the beginning of civilization, nor did civilization start with religion.

 

Further, religion is an emergent property of our evolved tendencies, not the other way around.

 

You and your false premises, HydrogenBond. It's almost cute how often you base your logic, examples, and analogies on misperceptions. ;)

[Southtown]

I never claimed to be objective, only correct.

Well, I empathize with your plight because I get adamant for causes also, but at the same time I have to question the subjective ideology that you base it all on. I have my own subjective ideology. And it really illustrates the topic quite well to point out that tolerance has to be first if we are to maintain a civilized planet.

 

Our only logical option as a species is to trade perspectives peacefully and learn from each other and grow. If we as a race are to create a livable society we must first learn to get along, and that means trading perspectives before championing a cause. It has to be a priority from president to peasant.

 

But probability says, half of us will act in the interest of the entity that is human existence and the other half will not. And it is this other half that seeks division who will be the end of us regardless of their cause. I think this is wisdom which circumscribes all that we have learned throughout the millenia, either scientifically or philosophically. Community is all we have or will ever have.

[Southtown]

I apologize for demonizing you, Inow. Also, I stole Buffy's thunder and used it to throw you under the bus. You obviously have nothing to with religion vs. religion. I just wanted to make a point, but I did it in the wrong way. It seems I keep doing the opposite of what I preach, so sorry to both of you.

[HydrogenBond]

Religion vs Religion has a logical explanation. If you look at the concept of God, by its very nature the full capability of God (in theory) should extend beyond all human comprehension. So what we essentially have is analogous to a box that is closed in terms of knowing all that is inside. What we see is some of the output coming from the closed box. Based on that output, we try to deduce what is inside the closed box, in terms of function. The result are many different perspectives about the same (theoretically) all inclusive box. These explanations typically remain within the limits of human perception and experience, even if the actual mechanism is using features or has goals we are totally unaware of.

 

As a science analogy, say we found a device from a very advanced alien civilization. It is totally sealed and has an odd shape. We can see that it gives off some type of energy field that ionizes the gases around it. Is also seems to pulse periodically, and have a few other anomalous behaviors. The question is what is it, using the constraint we can't open it, even with our best lasers and diamond saws, since the field is making the alloy extremely resistant to all these?

 

It is doubtful everyone will agree, based on just that much output data. But at the same time, experts and laymen will express their opinions and will develop logical explanations and then lobby to make theirs the consensus explanation. It is better than living in the dark about it, since this could make people afraid of worse case scenarios. They can all be wrong or the correct explanation could come from a child, since we really don't know. We may weigh the value of opinions based on the amount of resources invested, the hierarchy of authority, biggest herd, etc.

 

As time goes on, new observations and anomalies appear and our own technology and understanding of science advances. We will then refine the explanation in terms of what we know and are able to compare. But you will still get diverse opinions, as long as the device is sealed, in terms of full understanding. Even if we figure out a way to use the device as an energy source, it may still be something else. But this will become one dominant explanation because it has practical function. To each group their explanation is the way to give itself light in the darkness. People we will defend their light rather than be blind to the unknown. The unknown will create fear in too many people.

 

Say someone suggested this device was a dooms day device or bomb. They may be naturally paranoid, so all their angles for the unknown will reflect their paranoia. What this would do is bring far more fear into the discussion, then the desire angle of new progressive technology, from those who love science and progress. The fear angle, by being a strong emotion, might cause enough people to want to fly it off into space, even if in reality it was just an alien child's toy. We don't know, but the bomb explanation seems logical. But still, the bomb angle can affects others in a different way, as a new weapon. This angle will generated by those who have an aggressive nature and will motivate another group to hide it away for security. They may put the alien toy on a spear. Still others motivated by wealth would like to buy it and form a monopoly, with only the promise it will someday make them a lot of money.

 

With god, the box it is far more all inclusive and nebulous than a single piece of technology (for those who believe) so there are fewer constraints on explanations. But like any place where there is diverse opinions there is conflict. Religious conflict is often strongest because the ratio of light to darkness is much lower due to the theoretical size of the box.

[Pyrotex]

You could take this analogy one step further. :hihi:

You have not seen this "box"--you have only heard of it. Nor did the person who told you see the "box". Word of the "box" has been passed down from father to son for thousands of years. Descriptions of its "effects" (ionization, light, probablity shifts, other anomolies) also have passed down, orally, with no hard evidence.

 

So, you have to ask not only the nature of the "box" -- you have to confront the origin of this story, and whether or not it was founded in fact, or something else.

[rodgertutt]

2) What are the various benefits and problems associated with resolving these conflicts?

Discuss.

Cheers,

Buffy

 

IMO, the benefit of resolving the conflict of both Muslims and Christians believing the other is going to hell unless they convert, is that they will be able to see God as loving each of them equally.

 

This will enable them to like each other just for who they are as unique individuals, and not for what they think God is going to do to the other in the afterlife.

[Buffy]

IMO, the benefit of resolving the conflict of both Muslims and Christians believing the other is going to hell unless they convert, is that they will be able to see God as loving each of them equally.

How can this be made to come about? What are the motivations of the religious organizations to actually taking any such actions?

 

Only the weak blame parents, their race, their times, their lack of good fortunes or the quirks of fate. Everyone has within them the power to say, "This I am today, that I shall become tomorrow." The wish, however, must be implemented by deeds,

Buffy

[Moontanman]

IMO, the benefit of resolving the conflict of both Muslims and Christians believing the other is going to hell unless they convert, is that they will be able to see God as loving each of them equally.

 

This will enable them to like each other just for who they are as unique individuals, and not for what they think God is going to do to the other in the afterlife.

 

Roger, seriously, you can't get all Christians to agree all other Christians are going to heaven and not hell much less get them to agree there is no hell. Then there are the religions who really don't believe in either the Bible Old or New or the Koran. Then there are the Mormons, the Scientologists and lets not forget the Book of Urantia. Where do they figure in your idea of every one going to heaven? How do you get them to believe? Then of course there are the Pagans, the Witches, the druids, animists, and don't forget the Native American Great Spirit. Maybe we would all be better off if we just agreed the Great Spirit was the one and only and went from there brothers and sisters forever? Roger, does this give you pause for thought? What you are proposing looks to me more like a recipe for total global religious war than a proposal to bring every one together.

[maikeru]

I'm sure my opinions don't matter much here, in that I've come to believe in neither heaven nor hell, but that whether something is a heaven or hell depends on perspective. The power struggles, money grabs, inflated egos, and rationalized paranoia and dementia of most religions no longer appeals to me. It feels so empty and paltry. There are good elements to be found in most religions, the better aspects of human nature focused on love, generosity, forgiveness, kindness, etc. but these are not unique to religions, but are unique to the people who practice them regardless of affiliation. I believe people would be better to cultivate the fruits of the human spirit.