Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Do we even practice religion?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DPrice
reply to post by jiggerj
 


If grown-ups need an imaginary friend then who are we to stop them?


Whether imaginary or not, do you think the actions of believers reflect more on this god, or on very human needs and desires?

Actually, I'm curious as to what humans can do that reflect solely on religious beliefs, and would be in total disregard for human nature?

Even before religion, I'm sure there were good and caring people. So, the idea of being good and caring didn't come from religion. And, in the reverse, there were bad and brutal people before the formation of religion. So, we don't need religion to tell us of evil. Doing good deeds or evil deeds is very very human.



edit on 7/29/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine

Originally posted by DPrice
reply to post by jiggerj
 


If grown-ups need an imaginary friend then who are we to stop them?


If you have nothing to contribute it baffles me why you even came..


Excellent, My.mind! Clearly you are upset with DPrice's comment. Tell me (and be honest now because it fits right in with this discussion), did you rebuke him because he offended your religious belief in a god, or, is it that he upset you and you needed to ease your very own human anger?

If you followed your religion, what should your response have been? And, is there really a difference between religious actions and human actions?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by apushforenlightment

Originally posted by BlueMule
Spend a few years studying comparative religion, comparative mythology, and comparative mysticism and then come back and answer your own questions.


In a way I think you and I are assholes to the people who have not yet gone that way and have found that way of understanding. I will not say that our way is 100% right because it might be that we are trapping ourselves in a lower level of understanding than the OP might find on his path. And even if we are right he might evolve faster than ous towards something from his path than we will from our. What if we are on our way to a stagnant point where we cannot evolve anymore? I feel quite happy with my path but what if I am deluding myself and cannot see the forest becuase I am focusing on a tree again? What if we are creating a new dualiy driven thing that is based on nonduality vs duality. Are we any better than the religons as a whole who cannot see beyond duality?

Bah. Need more input/information and really a smarter and bigger brain. This one is pushing the limits all the time and I feel so stupid when it happens
.


Nah, you're doing great.
Unfortunately, people like BlueMule miss many points in life on even the lowest of levels. Example, he comes into a chat forum and offers nothing. No personal opinion, no valuable information...he offered nothing from his mind in a chat forum. Why bother going into a restaurant if you're not going to eat?

Even if he spewed sarcastic comments that provide some bit of opinion (be it right or wrong) is better than the useless sentence he wasted his time writing.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine

Originally posted by DPrice
reply to post by jiggerj
 


If grown-ups need an imaginary friend then who are we to stop them?


If you have nothing to contribute it baffles me why you even came..


Excellent, My.mind! Clearly you are upset with DPrice's comment. Tell me (and be honest now because it fits right in with this discussion), did you rebuke him because he offended your religious belief in a god, or, is it that he upset you and you needed to ease your very own human anger?

If you followed your religion, what should your response have been? And, is there really a difference between religious actions and human actions?


There was no anger, I'm just thoroughly confused as to why he came, hence the post. I don't appreciate derailments.

The root of his post was condescending to those of us who believe in God, but in a childish way. If he would have come like an adult and actually make a point, or argument, then I wouldn't think him to be a troll..

As for following my faith:

"If you have nothing good to say - say nothing."

I would have said nothing...
edit on 29-7-2012 by My.mind.is.mine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Well, considering for one I like your style and you referred me to this, and for two this is an excellent thread asking some deep questions and uncovering the not so obvious basic truths that emerge when the facades of religion are removed, no doubt F&S for you!

But to answer your question- yes they are practicing it. Still, it's nice to find a couple of questions that offer those in the thick of it alternative views about they are "doing."- and potentially, a way out.

I think a problem arises though in the lack of distinction between some religions.

Riddle me this: What do you do when the religion itself instructs to murder infidels? That breaches basic unalienable rights granted by....life itself. I don't see how a religious persuasion of this nature could be argued to be beneficial, such that it would be worthy of the debate in the first place? Perhaps a finer brush might be appropriate?

But overall, yeah, this world MIGHT be better off without it. Or would it? There is a lot of "religion" that does a lot of "good" in this world, like getting people fed and clothed. If it takes a Mission to do it, then I'm pretty sure the desperate people on the receiving end of that gladly accept the food and clothes, complete with the Mission strings attached. Why wouldn't they when the only other alternative is starvation? It's sad that corruption and greed, essentially, in the Mission itself may be the very thing that caused the people starving in the first place.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Never really understood the term "practicing a religion". If you are just practicing it, will you ever end up doing it for real? A lot of the language we use is detrimental without us even noticing it.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Of course not. What we practice is the suppression of our fear of death and nature, intolerance to others who don't believe as us, and the hate and scorn of our own selves.

We merely call it ‘religion,’ and we practice it to appear pious to others.




posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Of course not. What we practice is the suppression of our fear of death and nature, intolerance to others who don't believe as us, and the hate and scorn of our own selves.

We merely call it ‘religion,’ and we practice it to appear pious to others.



What you are talking about is for me is people praticing duality based on religion (instead of race/culture or other views) and true searching and understanding of religion can make you frankly get out of that dualitytrap if you are able to seek and question everything you read. I have already have faced the fear of death headon and experianced an temporary egodeath so that argument does not cut if from my point of view that seeking of the spirtiual nature of reality is based on fear. There is nothing to fear but fear itself and trapping yourself in your ego/mind. Some people worship god and human dogma and some people become like one with god/everything/universe based on a common way of being/behaving.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by apushforenlightment

There is nothing to fear but fear itself and trapping yourself in your ego/mind. Some people worship god and human dogma and some people become like one with god/everything/universe based on a common way of being/behaving.


Sorry sir, there is plenty to fear, and that quote is not a principle, it is a cliché. I would admit that maybe these days fear of death isn't so much a reason to become religious, and that it is likely people choose religion because they are taught and trained to.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Great topic OP. These are my thoughts on it. If a person practices a belief that brings no harm to anyone then why should I care what she/he believes? People should be allowed to practice or not practice whatever they want as long as they are peaceful. If we stopped putting so much thought and effort into changing or converting others and just accepted good people as good people without a care to what they personally believe maybe we could take our first steps towards a new world. We all are sovereign individuals and should be treated accordingly. I have had many people talk to me open and honestly and told me they enjoy our debates until they found out my personal beliefs. I have never killed anyone. I try to help others when I can. I try to be honest. I try to help in my community. I try to be a good person over all like many many other people. Why should I not be allowed to practice my beliefs in peace when they bring no harm to others? Why shouldn't we all have this right? More to the topic I have to confess that organized religion scares me. I have always had a problem with being told what to, and how to believe. I think a person needs to find for themselves and interpret for themselves the tenets of a certain faith or philosophy.
edit on 30-7-2012 by TRGreer because: Typo



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
YHWH said that pure religion is taking care of widows and orphans. That being said, how many people here take care of the widows and orphans?

Aside from that, a religion's duty is to help us improve our relationship to God. Apostasy happens when a religion does not fulfill this duty, and instead tells us what to do instead of getting us to find out what we should do. The Great Sage Y'shua said that our relationship with God depended on how we follow the Spirit (look up Y'shua's conversation with Nicodemus in John).

YHWH's big complaint with people today is that:
1. They'd rather follow false traditions rather than seek his will.
2. They think they are smarter than himself.
3. The Christian Church is overcome with Ba'alists, and they worship on Sunday rather than his designated Sabbath -- which changes every year.
4. They often defy his will.
5. They confuse his sex (he is Emphatically Male) and the sex of his Father (who is also emphatically Male).
6. They don't know His name (Jesus Christ has no meaning in Hebrew, Messianic Jews call him Yeshua (which means savior), or Yahshua (which means Yahweh is Salvation). The real name the Great Sage was called by Yahushua ben Yosef -- Joshua son of Joseph.
7. Professed Christians often takes his name in vain and act totally different from what they've been taught -- often daily. Thou shalt not take my name in vain has nothing to do saying profane and vulgar words.
8. The Church includes a lot of Pagan worship, including every Christmas, Easter, Valentines, and New Years.

No wonder there are so many Atheists and Christians leaving the Church, the greater body doesn't even follow the professed religion. There's a lot more, a lot more complaints that the Christ has, but there isn't enough room to list them all in one post.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Being illegal for state governments to legislate on their behalf applies to Atheism too.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by EltonJ
YHWH's big complaint with people today is that.


It could also be said that many people's big complaint with YHWH is that he appears completely non existent (outside of concepts in people's minds). No doubt his word also looks suspiciously like the ramblings of ignorant bronze/iron age sheep and goat herders, who were fond of accepting, embellishing and/or creating some very tall tales.

Though there could be a god like being/force, who knows? As to YHWH's anthropomorphic portrayal, seems very doubtful IMO.


Originally posted by jiggerj 'Would we, as an entire species, be better off with or without religion, do we even practice it?

Religion has been claimed as the motivation for a lot of things, good and bad. Would we be better off without it? I doubt it is necessary, yet it does seem a very natural thing to wonder about our universal origins. So in this way no IMO, probably better off without the established religions though, as they appear another mechanism to control the masses and claim to have all of the answers, seemingly based only on belief in the supernatural and superstition, much of it conflicting greatly with what we do know about the world around us.

You might enjoy the following paper/articles. It appears that societies may well be better off without religion, according to the studies. The correlation seems to be that the more secular societies are, the healthier they are and vice versa, that the more religious societies become, the more dysfunctional they also become. Whether religion would be a cause, or symptom of such dysfunction, being arguable. It does seem to put paid to the moralistic argument for god and religion.

It has also been argued that religiosity is caused by insecurity. Though i doubt that argument can be sustained on the whole. As much as I disagree with certain religious believers, in all other ways some of them seem quite wonderful, intelligent and secure people, both personally and materially.

hinessight.blogs.com...

domain-of-darwin.deviantart.com...

whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...

epiphenom.fieldofscience.com...

edit on 31-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Why look at "we" without considering what is does for individuals. Because some die from amoxicillin, should it be banned entirely or given to everyone with force?

They're debating from a utilitarian perspective, making the whole thing pointless. Either of those options which they would be debating are wrong. But it's a good time waster and makes them look smart.

Would not Dawkins, being an atheist and obviously a proponent for the theory of evolution, accept that just as any organism that exists currently or has gone extinct is "the way it's meant to be" that that line of thinking would also extend to the human organism and (not actually separate) the things that it creates?

If it is "there"....where does the debate part come in?

Ironic he supports a nihilistic theory of evolution yet takes an interest in social engineering.
edit on 7/31/2012 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Turq1
Why look at "we" without considering what is does for individuals.


What do you feel it does for individuals? Not saying it doesn't do anything, just wondering how you view this.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Turq1
Why look at "we" without considering what is does for individuals. Because some die from amoxicillin, should it be banned entirely or given to everyone with force?


What if it were shown that rather than being helpful, amoxicillin had detrimental health effects on societies that used it, correlating directly to amount used? How would you view this scenario?

eta. I wouldn't advocate banning religion. Though I do advocate lifting the taboo that often persists, about discussing it openly and honestly. I also feel that the practice of indoctrinating young minds with religion, should be banned. Unless it can be supported factually. It should be left until they are mature enough to make informed personal decisions and therefore, choose it if they wish.

edit on 31-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by Turq1
Why look at "we" without considering what is does for individuals. Because some die from amoxicillin, should it be banned entirely or given to everyone with force?


What if it were shown that rather than being helpful, amoxicillin had detrimental health effects on societies that used it, correlating directly to amount used? How would you view this scenario?


uhhh....just so you know, if you didn't, "amoxicillin" isn't latin or anything for "religion". It might seem like that, but it's not the case.

But if you have any new research that could help expand the drug information of amoxicillin, by all means, contact the FDA with these findings.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Turq1
uhhh....just so you know, if you didn't, "amoxicillin" isn't latin or anything for "religion". It might seem like that, but it's not the case.


Yes, I'm very well aware of what amoxicillin is.


But if you have any new research that could help expand the drug information of amoxicillin, by all means, contact the FDA with these findings.


If you read the links posted above, unlike amoxicillin, you will see the direct correlation between religion and societal ill health (all with genuine sources, including one published, peer reviewed paper itself). That being so, how would you now see your analogy? Still valid?


edit on 31-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

You've obviously got something going on here that I've somewhat been oblivious to. I'll check in tomorrow and make a comment. I like the way you think, and am not afraid to also share my thinking...

I've had a bit too much wine to be cohesive...

edit on 7/31/2012 by visualmiscreant because: clarifying statement


What? Am I not human???
edit on 7/31/2012 by visualmiscreant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by apushforenlightment

There is nothing to fear but fear itself and trapping yourself in your ego/mind. Some people worship god and human dogma and some people become like one with god/everything/universe based on a common way of being/behaving.


Sorry sir, there is plenty to fear, and that quote is not a principle, it is a cliché. I would admit that maybe these days fear of death isn't so much a reason to become religious, and that it is likely people choose religion because they are taught and trained to.


Yes that is conditioning and the thing you have to always question when you are seeking spiritually/understanding. Read Buddism or some Toltec wisdom and you will find religons who are preaching it. Some religons/views of thinking are milk for the babies that cannot handle solid food yet.

You can belive whatever you want about fear but the statement is true. When you do not care when you die and have no fear of it then death does not become that important anymore and when you do not fear death then it is hard to fear anything anymore. You can still think things are uncomfortable but it is not true fear. But we all have our own roads to follow and since you do not have my experiances then you will have a hard time understanding me.
edit on 31-7-2012 by apushforenlightment because: spellchecking





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join