Religion Of The Possible Future

Discussion in 'Religion' started by DLH, Aug 31, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DLH Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    Religion, in it's most basic sense, is the adherence to a specific set of beliefs. As Penn Jillette has said: "Everybody got a gris gris." As a young atheist I saw everything religious as a medium for ignorance, hypocrisy and intolerance. The bloody history of organized religion can't be denied, but it can be misunderstood. I suppose it has something to do with how you look at it. If you look at the ignorant narrow minded religious bigots who represented organized religion when I was growing up you could hardly blame religion, only a tool tragically misused by imperfect people. This potential for abuse misuse isn't exclusive to religion because it is inherently a human weakness. You only have to ask yourself what from religion empowered those hypocrites and bigots who made such an impression on me in my youth? Teachings of love, peace and forgiveness? No. It was their tradition, culture and xenophobia. The horrors of religion past are due to the masses empowering their leaders. Greed, lust and sociopolitical domination. These are not exclusive to religion. They are human weaknesses.

    I loath organized religion because of what it does to it's own original teachings. They are corrupted through syncretism, and transmogrified for the amusement of the adherents. No religion has ever remained true, even unto itself. But these human imperfections can be found in all of mankind's endeavors. Politics, for example. Where would the abominations of religion's bloody past have been without politics? Religion was simply a tool misused there as well. Look at the lone ex patent clerk who rejected the Nazi power that all of his later colleagues of science would so readily embraced. Look at what greed and power has done to science in the case of thermonuclear and chemical warfare, the pharmaceutical, genetically modified foods.

    The religion of the future must evaluate this in order to continue, but, if they survive, so must politics, science and most importantly, all people. Pitting one against the other is just the inflation of the cost of history repeating itself.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2014
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ForrestDean Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    364
    So does this mean you are no longer atheist?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DLH Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    I haven't been atheist for 20 years. I became a believer in the Bible at age 27.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    Why do you believe in the Bible and not some other fiction? Why not Islam or Judaism, if we are only talking about Abrahamic psychoses? How about the Buddhists who mutilate themselves? Are they less correct than Christians who murder in the name of Christ?

    What happened to you at age 27 that left you mindless?

    Edit: No apology for the attack. I see too much of this basura posted in the name of Jesus, when it's nothing but what you forgot to take out last week, and now it stinks. Go find a Jesus website to spew on.
     
  8. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    Religion needs to be about knowledge. We can believe to get to great heights but our mind, our world is because of and for knowledge.

    Religion means things and if it strays from them it loses the essence of religion and its self. Those things; love, respect, peace, honor, and virtue.

    Nature, or a unique archetype for each person would mean were a pantheon of Gods... When we realize of course. Virtues like wisdom and style make up our very essence and give us unique auras when we receive enlightenment.
     
  9. DLH Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    Actually, I was mindless up to that point. I was completely ignorant of that which I loathed, although to this day I still find it (organized religion) a loathsome thing. What happened was that for the first time I picked up a Bible to study it. I thought I should make some attempt to educate myself on the alleged source of disgust.

    My primary interest is in the Bible, though I am familiar with other sacred and quasi sacred texts. I'm working on putting up a translation of the Quran on my website, Pathway Machine, and also have the Dhammapada, Pirqe Aboth, Bhagavad-Gita, Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu, Analects of Confucius, Four Noble Truths, Kojiki and Nihongi. Though I have a lesser interest in other world religions, I am also familiar with each of them, and have published articles on my site with brief histories of Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism and Taoism.

    Most of those texts don't claim a godhead, they don't have texts that make the same claim of divine inspiration that the Bible does, and they certainly don't compare to the Bible in reliability or historical significance.

    I don't need an apology from you, go ahead and speak your mind.
     
  10. DLH Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    Religion is a formal term that puts a brand name on the belief of the masses. The masses typically adhere to a specific brand for social, traditional, cultural or familial reasons, though occasionally through the guise of seeking knowledge, knowledge is almost always conjectural, speculative if not specifically propagandist. That means knowledge in general, not exclusively religious.

    Religion should be about awareness. Micah 6:8 says: "He has told you, O man, what is good. And what is Jehovah requiring of you? Only to exercise justice, to cherish loyalty, And to walk in modesty with your God!" The Hebrew term translated modesty literally means to be aware of ones own strengths and weaknesses.
     
  11. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    Lol. Poor epistemology. Knowledge is not conjectural. Conjecture literally means un-knowing. How can you possibly know something without proof. Knowledge is literally proof.
     
  12. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    And there's the rub. What you call sacred may be complete garbage to me and to the ISIL moron holding the rifle.

    There is only one God and his name is whatever I want it to be right now.

    Like I said, there's the rub.
     
  13. DLH Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    O, ye of little pedantic humor. Ever tell yourself "I know I . . . " did something which, alas, you hadn't? Proof is subjective. Knowledge, in theory, may imply knowing, but in practice, often doesn't. For example: "I know we were created." or "I know we evolved."
     
  14. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    Knowledge is knowing. That's the same word. Proof is absolute. It has distinct meaning.
     
  15. DLH Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    Just because something isn't sacred to me doesn't mean that it isn't sacred. Religion is like art or music or love or politics or wine judging . . . There are dozens of gods mentioned in the Bible alone. Some of them people who existed. Like Moses, Jesus, the Judges of Israel, the Sumerian King Tammuz (Dumuzi).

    The trouble, I think, with the concept of atheism by definition is that it totally overestimates the title of god. God can be, as you rightly seem to imply, anything or anyone. After all, when did Jehovah of the Bible become a god? Not until he was a god in the eyes of someone else. An atheist will tell you that there is no god or gods and then turn around and name a half a dozen. Just because some of them didn't exist don't mean they weren't gods.
     
  16. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    OK. I get it. DLH is lofty and wise, kx000 tries to be.

    Same statistic, different data.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Wow. Edit: I meant "Bullshit."
     
  17. DLH Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    Then, in knowing something a person can't be wrong. In court evidence can't be misinterpreted and science needn't correct itself since it has proof?
     
  18. DLH Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    Atheist are, if I may readopt an awful cliche, like belief in Santa Clause. Though often compared to the religious (not that atheist aren't but lets not kick open that can of worms) in that they believe in Santa Clause because they were told but then disbelieve him for the same reason. It makes them feel intellectually mature but nothing has really changed except what they have been told to think.
     
  19. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    In American courts, testimony is sworn on the Bible. Does that mean you can lie if you're Zoroastrian?

    What is "proof" in the eyes of ISIL? A tribute or a head?

    Religion belongs in the the DSM.
     
  20. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    Santa Clause was a movie. Do you have trouble with your fantasies?
     
  21. DLH Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    My fantasies are just fine, mister, I can tell you!

    Anyway. Santa Clause has a history beyond the movie.
     
  22. DLH Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    Good question, and even better one would be what the Bible itself might have to say about swearing on the Bible. It's not good.

    Your mode of 'speech,' Earthling man, is not always easy to understand.
     
  23. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    Screw the fricking Bible. and get a fricking life. Limiting yourself and everyone you speak to to a fool's errand is simply insane.

    Welcome to SciForums, may your stay be nasty, brutish and short.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page