Is the foundation of the three major monothestic religions false?

a reply to: LauGhing0ne

I disagree. Religion doesn't MEAN religio. It originates from the word religio which originates from the word religare, which
means to bind. Religion, as a thing and a word, does not mean the same as the word it originated from.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm not laughing. I am perfectly serious.

To be a humanist, you have to believe the only thing greater than humanity would potentially be an extraterrestrial life form, but not everyone believes those exist or that if they do, they are more advanced.

Some who do believe in aliens actually do seem to put them on the same plane as a deity in the sense that they seem to look to aliens as our potential saviors. They will be far more advanced and enlightened and all that stuff. I think that's a load of bull myself. Any aliens we find will be more or less like ourselves and as flawed for being the same mundane sorts of mundane creatures, even IF they do have far superior technology.

The meme was addressing those New Age sorts who put aliens in the near-deity plane but don't believe in God.

a reply to: TerryDon79

"In your world", what does it mean?

The greeks were a big part of the New Testament, so their word is probably that of what it means.

In the real world, it does mean "to bind".

But if we are lurking in to the realm of subjective truth, you can make anything to the truth if you believe it.. But dont forget, its your world and not the one we are living in.

a reply to: ketsuko
Kets, you are one of my favorite nemesis on ATS, so I'm going to be really honest with you for a moment...

I was only half-joking in that post.

Faith: I do have faith in a good many things, but I lack it now, where I once probably had more of it than you. I'm not an atheist because I have faith there is no god. I'm an atheist because I see no substantial evidence of god in the religious sense. The same way I see no substantial evidence that Odysseus landed on an island of giants with one eye in the middle of their forehead. I don't have faith it didn't happen. I lack any faith it did. The evidence points to it being a myth. I have said before, I'm willing to concede the possibility of a creator or creators, but not the religious concept of such.

a reply to: LauGhing0ne

In my world? You mean your world has a different definition?

Link

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Oh look. The real world definition doesn't mean to bind.

And what "basis" would that be? I'm gonna take a wild stab and say it probably has to do with state-enforced humanism

Well, that would be better than state sponsored religion, which America pretty much is at this point. Look at all the countries where religions controls the state and there's nothing but war, chaos and oppression.

Really, if everyone was properly educated and knew the truth and the ability to reason you wouldn't need a state to control people. Of course conservatives say education is control and they oppose it as much as they can for that reason.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Did you just now take the word religion and its meaning from a dictionary?

In a educational institution of any kind will probably never let you define something out of a dictionary and leave out the etymology.

It does not work like that in the real world, i know its subjective to you, if it is hard to cope with i suggest getting a higher education.

I linked the wikipedia page on the word religion and you have the etymology at the bottom which the dictionary left out.

Link - Wikipedia

originally posted by: CB328
The World's Biggest Fraud "Is the foundation of the three major monotheist religions false"?

No; they are true, just need a constituency (a body of like minded fakirs) to prove them to be true.

a reply to: LauGhing0ne

Thanks!

You just proved my point that the word religion doesn't mean to bind, but the words that it originates from do.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm not laughing. I am perfectly serious.

To be a humanist, you have to believe the only thing greater than humanity would potentially be an extraterrestrial life form, but not everyone believes those exist or that if they do, they are more advanced.

Some who do believe in aliens actually do seem to put them on the same plane as a deity in the sense that they seem to look to aliens as our potential saviors. They will be far more advanced and enlightened and all that stuff. I think that's a load of bull myself. Any aliens we find will be more or less like ourselves and as flawed for being the same mundane sorts of mundane creatures, even IF they do have far superior technology.

The meme was addressing those New Age sorts who put aliens in the near-deity plane but don't believe in God.

Humanism doesn't necessarily reject the idea of a higher power, but prioritizes man before it.

a reply to: TerryDon79

So you mean that words just popped up out of nowhere and their meaning? Like magic? Or are they defined by what came before?

Maybe you just appeared out of nothing? I could give that a thought, in my imagination

a reply to: ketsuko

Scientology has the same belief in an alien thing, and a set of ideals.

originally posted by: LauGhing0ne
a reply to: TerryDon79

So you mean that words just popped up out of nowhere and their meaning? Like magic? Or are they defined by what came before?

I guess you're either not a native English speaker or have difficulty understanding it.
Religion comes from religio, which means to bind. Religion probably did mean to bind, at one point. It no longer does, as I showed with a simple definition from the dictionary.

Maybe you just appeared out of nothing? I could give that a thought, in my imagination

Maybe you just want to argue the meaning of a word, instead of the subject?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Why do i think that those with a degree would disagree with you? Or do you think they would agree with you?

Or are they wrong? the institutions also? The theologians, priests, schoolars?

You mean you are right and they are wrong? Not sure Terry, but im pretty sure its called a fundamentalist in my world

originally posted by: LauGhing0ne
a reply to: TerryDon79

Why do i think that those with a degree would disagree with you? Or do you think they would agree with you?

What does a degree have to do with the definition of a word?

Or are they wrong? the institutions also? The theologians, priests, schoolars?

No, they're quite correct as they will say religion does not mean to bind.

You mean you are right and they are wrong? Not sure Terry, but im pretty sure its called a fundamentalist in my world

See above.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Well i can be honest here, and say they disagree with you.

The Schoolars clearly define the word " to bind " its called etymology.

The first thing you learn in college, source.

Have a nice day, Terry. Try to get a little education or listen to someone who has one

originally posted by: LauGhing0ne
a reply to: TerryDon79

Well i can be honest here, and say they disagree with you.

The Schoolars clearly define the word " to bind " its called etymology.

The first thing you learn in college, source.

Have a nice day, Terry. Try to get a little education or listen to someone who has one

Source? How about Etymology online dictionary?

Guess what? It doesn't mean to bind.

a reply to: TerryDon79

So it means "to be bound", is it that different?

originally posted by: CB328
So should we throw out all religion and principles and embrace anarchy? I don't think so, what I'm suggesting is that we need a new basis, a new framework for moral beliefs and systems that include things like environmental protections and the effects of our actions and economic systems on other countries and cultures instead of only caring about our own nations. We need a new, modern system of morality that doesn't conflict with science and creates harmony instead of conflict, opportunity instead of oppression, wisdom instead of warfare, and hope for a sustainable and livable future.

Thomas Jefferson re-wrote the New Testament without all the fake storytelling, called "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth". Why he didn't do the same thing with the old testament, I don't know, but maybe there wouldn't be much of old testament left if he did that?

Anyway the Abrahamic religions can't be right because this document clearly states what the one true religion is, and it's none of those:

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: TerryDon79

So it means "to be bound", is it that different?

The word religion doesn't mean that either. The words it originated from and, possibly, the earlier meaning of the word, sure. It doesn't mean to bind or to be bound today.