spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
What will we replace religion with?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
The religion of Humanity
Where a Temple of Humanity is built in every country , which contains , within its walls , all countries flags and shields , languages and history , in hard copy , and electronic
This temple would be 500ft tall by a thousand feet long and 500ft wide , built by the hardest rock known
This temple will give respect for all peoples of the Earth
This is just the start
Where a Temple of Humanity is built in every country , which contains , within its walls , all countries flags and shields , languages and history , in hard copy , and electronic
This temple would be 500ft tall by a thousand feet long and 500ft wide , built by the hardest rock known
This temple will give respect for all peoples of the Earth
This is just the start
roger_pearse
Registered Member
The Committee of Public Safety, of course. As they did last time. The temple of reason has an evil history.
And who on earth believes a "religion" which he knows was made up yesterday, and by people who don't believe it themselves?
Giving credit where due, the wise men of antiquity rose to that challenge by inventing indoctrination. It works like a brain shunt with a feed line tied directly to a dream generator. The Holy Matrix.
You didn't answer my question, Jan.
Where do you think God acquired the raw materials to create the universe?
But here we are in the present age with all of history to guide us. It doesn't mean people will ever learn from all of the mistakes ever made, it simply means that there no excuse not to.
Why would anyone believe anything that was ever made up?
Fortunately we live in a world rich with knowledge, free for the asking.
Ah, so you have no answer to the question. That's what I suspected. Any more false statements and fabrications, Jan?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Sounds like pantheism to me. The problem with pantheism is all the bad things that God must be as well. Crap. Viruses. Botulism. Cancer. Alzheimer's. Mental illness. Crime. Birth defects. If God is all this too, what's the point in worshipping him?
How on Earth can anybody intelligent enough to write say something that unutterably stupid?
The thing is... there is "faith", and then there is "blind faith"... faith is good. Faith enables you to persevere in the face of the unknown and seemingly insurmountable injustice knowing that someone, somewhere, gives a damn about you.
Blind faith leads to things like the crusades and "holy wars"...
Hmm. Faith is good, I suppose, provided the outcome is acceptable in this modern world. Of course, if faith requires you to stone adulterers or amputate limbs then you might change your mind about that.
I think the kind of faith you're discussing is really confidence or perseverance or obstinacy or sheer bloody-mindedness, and there is no need to invoke the Almighty in that case.
Surprisingly, people persevere even without belief celestial fathers.
And that is fine - there are many kinds of "faith", and most people have several kinds of faith, whether they know it or not: Faith in themselves (self esteem/self worth), faith in their friends or family, faith that the sun will rise every day, faith in "something larger (be it a deity, deities, or the cosmos at large), faith that their body will continue to remember how to absorb O2 from the air and expel CO2 back into it, faith that the zombie apocalypse hasn't happened yet (though some monday mornings, looking at my co-workers shambling into work, I begin to wonder...) et al
Blind faith though... such as the kind that leads people to vote party line without even reading/knowing who is in said party or what they stand for / want to do, or such as that which leads people to follow an angry little man into one of the largest genocides in human history... that's where problems arise.
That is why I do have my belief in God... because I question it, because I did not have that belief at one point. I believe we are meant to be introspective and reflect on ourselves, that we are meant to better ourselves and to improve ourselves and to try and live good lives and help those of us who are honestly less fortunate than us and need a hand up to get back on their feet. Science, medicine, technology, a changing worldview... they are not "evils of a modern society", they are us, as human beings, pushing ourselves ever onward and upward, as we were meant to do.
After all, if God wanted simple, obedient, unquestioning followers... isn't that what he would have made? yes, I know the whole "thou shalt not tempt the almighty" thing... there are phrases and passages that can make it seem that way... but I don't think that's what was meant. It was meant more as a "God helps those who make the effort to help themselves" kind of deal.
*shrugs* Again, just how I view things, my personal beliefs. If I die and get to Heaven and God looks at me and says WTF were you thinking, my simple answer would be "Exactly, I was thinking" lol. if I die and all that happens is worms nibble on me a bit before realizing I taste absolutely horrible... well, I guess by that point I don't have to worry, cause I'm dead XD
And that is fine - there are many kinds of "faith", and most people have several kinds of faith, whether they know it or not: Faith in themselves (self esteem/self worth), faith in their friends or family, faith that the sun will rise every day, faith in "something larger (be it a deity, deities, or the cosmos at large), faith that their body will continue to remember how to absorb O2 from the air and expel CO2 back into it, faith that the zombie apocalypse hasn't happened yet (though some monday mornings, looking at my co-workers shambling into work, I begin to wonder...) et al
That's not the same thing as religious faith. While I appreciate that you're more thoughtful about your belief than some others, your faith still requires an acceptance of the unknowable. It is, by its very definition, blind. Having faith in oneself, or in the sun rising, is based on knowledge.
But blind faith is not required to commit atrocities. I'm quite sure the Taliban is familiar with their religious texts.
Well, that's a commendable view, albeit within the context of faith. I certainly doubt you'd hold it if not for Western influence, but I guess all that really matters is that you use your head for the important stuff.
Fair enough, though many of the Pagan beliefs hold a lot of merit in my eyes as well And I see your point about the idea of the unknowable - though you could potentially draw a comparison to the challenging of such things as the notion that the Earth was flat - after all, overcoming the fear of "falling off the edge of the world" must have taken extraordinary amounts of faith (or foolishness, depending how you look at it)
And I see your point about the idea of the unknowable - though you could potentially draw a comparison to the challenging of such things as the notion that the Earth was flat - after all, overcoming the fear of "falling off the edge of the world" must have taken extraordinary amounts of faith (or foolishness, depending how you look at it)
Bells
Staff member
Why not?
People believe in deities.
Deal with it.
Society needs to learn to deal with it. You can't force someone to not believe in their deity of choice.
I think focusing on someone believing in a deity as the point of conflict is a bit stupid. You can't force someone to become an atheist and hounding them into submission is just wrong. And making this the focal point or central issue of the conflict trivialises issues that are actually worth fighting for.
If you attack their faith or belief in their deity in trying to push and encourage equal rights, for example, then their reaction will be to dig in to defend their belief in their deity of choice first and foremost.
One of the main things to remember is that religious text is written by man. It's not divine.
The main issue with this is that it hasn't changed or altered in a few hundred years. Certain aspects of texts still remains in the veritable dark ages, and it applies to the time in which it was written. After all, the men who wrote these books could only apply their own experiences and what they knew and understood or believed as per their time. What needs to be encouraged is a modernisation of said text to suit society as society evolves. At the very least, it's interpretation needs to evolve along with society instead of still holding on to the literal interpretation which would have been fine 2000 years ago, but hardly apply in today's society and the numerous cultures that exist today.
I found Jan's comments that only someone ordained can stone someone for sinning to be abhorrent. It's barbaric and it applies the literal interpretation to a religious text that would have been right at home 2000 years ago, but society and human beings have moved well past that level of barbarism. Is it based on faith? Or a literal interpretation?
My parents are strict Catholics. Go to Church every week, don't eat meat on Friday's during lent, the whole nine yards. However they are strong supporters and advocates for gay marriage and believe that priests and nuns should be allowed to marry and that women should be priests. It goes against their religious teachings and literature. But their beliefs stem from their belief in God and the whole Christian ethos that is often lost - that all human beings are created equal and that they should not judge (even me, their very atheist daughter).. But most importantly, that God loves all he creates and would love cast such stones and hatred because someone was different? That is the central basis of their belief and their faith. Their religion is just somewhere they feel they can go, pray, do something for others and hopefully be part of a religious community that encompasses their faith.. Amazingly enough, their parish is overly progressive to the point where their priest quietly blesses gay unions and their gay members give out communion and read in Church sometimes. Heaven help the Catholic Church if they try to do to my parents parish what they did to a parish in my State, by dismissing the priest for similar reasons - the whole parish supported the priest and all were happily expelled.. My parents would not take such actions against their parish lying down.
Religion needs to move forward with the time. It needs to adapt to a changing society. Not society adapt to religion.
The correct answer Jan should have given is that people should not be stoning others because stoning others harms the other person and they should take a lesson from Christ... The central basis of Christianity... Which is ironic really.. Because the very things religious Christian conservatives advocate for and would support are the very things Christ would not have done or supported.. He did not place conditions on how or whether someone could be or should be accepted. Which is why to me, Jan does not quality as a real Christian. Hater's who call themselves Christians kind of don't really do as Christ would have done.
I would suggest that fighting for reason over faith is worth fighting for.
Oh well? I mean, what characterizes an "attack," anyway? Criticizing faith shouldn't be viewed as an attack. Criticizing religious texts shouldn't be viewed as an attack. And just because a person might see it as such doesn't mean that their feelings are valid.
I disagree. There are interpretations of those texts ranging from the benign to the fatal, so whichever changes you might hope for are already represented in the belief systems of people like Kittamaru, for example: a good, genuine person who doesn't allow faith to cloud his vision or interfere with his capacity to reason.
The main issue, to borrow your phrase, is that we're dealing with what is alleged to divine truth. People who believe in these systems, whether that belief is good or ill, tend to believe they have the ultimate arbiter on their side. That's an exceptionally dangerous proposition.