Religion....why??

Thanks for the compliment masqua,

I really have to emphasize that I lack any education in this field and the only knowledge I have on this subject is the one i guess....

Thanks for the information.

Peace

reply to post by tri-lobe-1

tri-lobe-1,

I really wish i could understand what you just said but maybe if you elaborate a bit, I might be able to come up with a decent reply...

Sorry.

Peace

hey, now...it takes a spiritual seer to get this. we live in our worldly reality, but think back to where God was when He made this 3 dimensional reality. our minds "short circuit before we can grasp that.

way supernatural, huh. so, to have a book to go by, to have truths, He must be really interested in helping us. now this. did you know that if you talk to God, He will talk back? i swear

to read just one book in the bible....maybe 45 minutes, that's all it takes. one of the four gospel books like luke or better...John. 30 minutes will do.!

Although sure to piss off the Catholics and Orthodox Christians, I don't regard the existence of God to be necessary in the belief of Christian religion, or any monotheistic religion. My relation to any god is a personal matter. Most of the times it's a feeling of connectedness with the world as a whole. This doesn't hinder me from following Christian ethics or serving a Christian community.

I guess you could call this a practical argument for religion, not necessarily against God, but not in its favor either. There are, as far as I know, no valid philosophical arguments for the existence of a God, understood as an abstract entity in an external world that controls our earthly lives. I find the idea of an omnipotent entity interesting and important for other reasons (like keeping the crowd in check), but not central to the way in which I live my life.

reply to post by Faiol

Originally posted by Faiol
++ yeah yeah, a lot of people here above trying to be an smart ass talking about religion is not the study of gods, but in reality, we all know what we are talking about, we are talking about religion of gods ... so, PLEASE, SHUT UP and dont try to be an asshole ....

I agree with everything you said in your post until you edited the above in.

How presumptuous and elitist of you to exclude the spiritual roots of those worldly religions based on the invention of 'gods', dismissing them with the mere wave of your hand and the added bonus of silencing our voice. To add insult to injury, you provide a general personal attack on the character of those who might, like myself, seriously disagree with you.

Where, do you think, the idea of 'gods' came from, if not through the visions of those early shamans?

I do not follow a religion or special path. For me it was more important to be spiritual, in that we never take anything or anyone for granted, that we respect others as we ourselves would like to be respected, that we walk upon moral ground so to speak, with love and compassion.

Each individual has his or her belief system and moral compass. Though what one finds as moral, another may not. For many, religion has brought comfort and guidence. For some, their religion has been taken to extremes. I do not see mankind changing any time soon if at all.

reply to post by operation mindcrime


M.C.

My reply was in english( my first lang).......

No western christian has the guts to follow their master.....

Jesus was a jewish rabbi......No western christian will convert to the jewish faith....... to follow their leader and master........

Christians are hipocrites,two faced,back stabing and in the western world scared of any one different..........

Is this clear enough now?

reply to post by tri-lobe-1


Crystal...

Now go stand in the corner until you can behave in a proper manner, young man!!

Peace

Originally posted by tri-lobe-1
reply to post by operation mindcrime

 

M.C.

My reply was in english( my first lang).......

No western christian has the guts to follow their master.....

Jesus was a jewish rabbi......No western christian will convert to the jewish faith....... to follow their leader and master........

Christians are hipocrites,two faced,back stabing and in the western world scared of any one different..........

Is this clear enough now?

Interesting mass generalization and not particularly new ones either. This is based on what?

To operation mindcrime - great post. I'm not a fan of religion, religion and faith are 2 very different things to me. Some would regard me as spiritual more than religious but I'm still finding my way as I'm a fairly "new" christian. I agree that you don't need to be a christian or have a spiritual/religious faith to be good or live by a moral code.

I disagree that it should just be classed as a hobby though. By the very nature of the impact my faith has had on me it has affected all parts of my life including work. I think I get what you mean though regarding it influencing decision making in certain matters. It can be an influence in some matters but not necessarily the primary reason for such matters except on an individual level (I think that made sense)

I think its important to lead a life with a strong moral code but the influence/source of that doesn't necessarily have to be religious but then, who sets the guidelines?

You have Diefied man to a point that is unattainable. The one thing the Darwin got right is "servival of the fittest." Without Moral guidence humanity would eat itself alive. (abortion comes to mind) You have shown that you do not understand athropology fully. This is because you don't know the true history of man. I suggest you investigate the implications of the fall of man and then look into history to find just how depraved man is. No amount of time or "evolution" can make you any more or less moral. There is a trend in the atheistic/evolution worldview to make time the God you worship. Time plus chance = humanity. Through time we will be even better. Time must be a miracle worker of the highest order. I thought you guys didn't believe in that.

Why religiun? Death. All religions deal largly with the next world we will pass into at our death. How we live in this world is belived by many to effect the next. Even reincarnation deals with death and the effects on proper living on a next life.

Ancient Egypt the Weighing of the Heart to determain final dispensation of the soul. Same in Central America. The ancient worlds were all consumed with the jorney into the next world and status there be it above or below. Immortality of some sort. Simply because death is all consuming to some unless distracted.

Christanitly holds that a scapegoat was offered. Most others hold that living up to codes of conduct whatever they may be will ansewer the problem. One just has to hope the good outwieghs the bad or its going to be bad for you. Reincarnation provides a self salvation being the cycle untill perfection. Christanity holds that no person can escape on their own. That there is not a 51% or better over the balance to ensure life after death, but that anything short of 100% means failure. So all have failed thus the scapegoat Lord and resurection to life by Him, the ransom.

reply to post by trueperspective


Thanks for your reply ,

But...

Without Moral guidence

Who are we gonna trust as an impartial guide? That is the question....

You: God......

Me: okay, but God doesn't speak to me so how do i know the rules?

You: Well we have the bible...

The other guy: no the Koran....

The third guy: no the etc etc......

I have no problem with people getting a lot out of their religion but as a moral guidance is just doesn't work....

Peace


Peace

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by trueperspective

 

Thanks for your reply ,

But...

Without Moral guidence

Who are we gonna trust as an impartial guide? That is the question....

You: God......

Me: okay, but God doesn't speak to me so how do i know the rules?

You: Well we have the bible...

The other guy: no the Koran....

The third guy: no the etc etc......

I have no problem with people getting a lot out of their religion but as a moral guidance is just doesn't work....

Peace


Peace

You are correct that there are many competting religions. I will tell you this. I was once a staunch anti-religion guy. Not because I didn't believe it or didn't like it. It was because I didn't want to live by the morals. I wanted to do whatever I wanted to do. Anyway, after that became mudane, meaningless, pointles, unfulfilling, depressing, hopeless, and all together unpleasent, I decided to study religion. wihtout a giant book of information I can tell you that Christianity is the true religion. I have read countless books and I have studied the best apologist from the more main stream religions. I am a Christian not because my parents are. Half my family is athesit. Not because I'm an American. Not because it is conveinent. Not because it is the popular thing to do. Not because I need a crutch. Not because I have daddy issues and on and on the accusations go. I am a Christian because I honestly sought the truth and found it to be Christianity. I suggest you honestly and without bias search and find out if other religions live up to there claims. I found that have not, and not because I was a baised Christian, cause I was anti-religion first.

reply to post by trueperspective


Well Trueperspective,

You are correct that there are many competting religions. I will tell you this. I was once a staunch anti-religion guy. Not because I didn't believe it or didn't like it. It was because I didn't want to live by the morals.

That's where you and I differ...

I can agree with most of the morals all great religions teach us....just not all of them. Just the basic rules that come up in every religion...

I found this quote..

The death of dogma is the birth of morality.

Immanuel Kant.

I am gonna have to think this one over..

Peace

reply to post by operation mindcrime

You raise an excellent point and a reminder to me that i should really consider doing some research before posting anything. But i do these things with zero knowledge on the subject and only my gut feeling...

Maybe cosmopolitan right would be a better description or universal moral.

I think the term you're looking for is Objective Morality; codes of behavior and conduct which originate from outside of and beyond the individual or society. Subjective morality is the moral standards and behavioral codes we establish either individually or as a society.

So for a theist of the Abrahamic flavor, objective morality is represented in the 10 Commandments - whereas subjective morality is generated by the state and culture. The common argument is that were morality subjective, then a society can decide that rape and murder and morally noble acts. They believe the 10 Commandments are an eternal immutable morality regardless of the laws and standards of society.

So "Thou shalt not kill" is a cherished moral that forbids murder. Though a distinction between "murder" and "execution" is made wherein non-believers, secular humanists, naturalists, etc, don't see the difference. To them, murder means taking the life of an innocent; but killing can still be noble if they think god approves or demands the act. Personally, the idea of religious warfare over theological differences has never sat well with me. Rarely is war undertaken without substantial material benefits to be gained. Land, resources, security, ego, etc... all of which are very human concerns. The invocation of "God's Blessing" and the exaggeration of the theological importance tends to be more a justification for murder by invoking God's Blessing and righteous support of the campaign.

Similarly, dehumanization is another mechanism by which we justify killing by differentiating it from murder. By reducing others to the status of beasts or social parasites - or by identifying them as monsters which pose a threat - then killing those people is an act of righteousness. I think this is why racial slang is so prominent in military operations. Opposing forces aren't other human beings fighting for their beliefs, their freedoms, their family and their future just like us... they're sub-human; "Gooks", "Jerrys", "Hadjis", "Dinks", etc. Further, we also tend to dehumanize ourselves before going into war by abdicating responsibility to chains of command, hide behind the anonymity of uniforms... we become part of a machine. Some cultures undergo rituals wherein they try to imbue the strength and spirit of beasts, where they shed their humanity together around a campfire... then don their war paint so as to become the monster that can kill a human being without mercy. If you've ever read/watched Lord of the Flies, you may recognize this as the behavior in Jack and his hunters as the story progresses. They painted themselves before the hunt and "played savages" to ease the remorse of having to kill an animal. By the end of the story, they had declared Ralphie as the pig and hunted him. Hunter Thompson summed it up well, "He who makes a beast of himself, rids himself of the pain of being a man".

Though very different expressions, I think there's a common thread between Thompson's Drug binges, Jack's Hunters, and religious institutions that's rather telling. All three act as powerful coping mechanisms that afford shelter for a wounded and frightened social animal combining unprecedented levels of self-awareness, association, and imagination.



And perhaps this common thread does indeed indicate some vague nebulous interplay of instinctual behaviors that fashion a sort of objective morality which we inherit from our ancestors. The same natural universe which gave rise to the selfish genes and endless greed has also given rise altruism and self-sacrifice. Social animals which are compelled to cooperate and help each other boost the survival probability for all group members. When we generously give of ourselves to help others in need, we feel good about it. This is essentially a positive reinforcement our brain gives itself to promote behaviors beneficial for group survival. A more obvious and direct example of a similar function is physical pain. Pain indicates that something is wrong with your body, and it hurts because your brain is wired to experience that negative sensation so that you avoid further damage by fleeing/avoiding the source of that pain. If you fracture your leg fleeing from a predator, the pain that fracture causes when you apply pressure to it will compel you to reduce pressure on it as much as possible by limping. By avoiding pressure, the risk of compounding the injury is reduced. Such a condition is called congenital analgesia, typically manifesting in one or both forms. Insensitivity is the inability to perceive pain, while indifference is the inability to generate a reflex response to it. A severely insensitive patient who accidentally places their hand on a hot griddle may not realize his hand is cooking until other sensory cues (smell, resistance to normal motion, visual, etc). An severe indifferent patient in that situation would feel the intensity of the pain generated by their flesh cooking on the metal, but wouldn't have the reflex to remove their hand from the source.

So any underlying objective morality to human nature wouldn't be recognizable as morality at the level of interaction we typically associate morality with... and we can only explain the source and purpose of our current morality within certain frameworks of interaction which are only useful to a certain resolution.

I probably didn't explain that as well as I could have. Think of it like this. A wildflower is composed entirely of individual atoms, but if you only study the interactions of the atoms - you won't learn anything useful about the wildflower. The same would apply our morality, which emerges from an objective source, which itself is the effect of interacting systems at levels which aren't useful in explaining our morality.

------

Also, it wasn't my intention to criticize your OP. I was merely spring boarding from that comment to inject my opinion on a matter which doesn't seem to get much attention or inspection in popular culture. It's become so overused within the context of a verbal bludgeon that the inverse implication of such statements is assumed to be desirable. Common Sense must be a good thing. Suggesting that Common Sense is, in any way, an undesirable trait can seem almost heretical or absurd.


[edit on 12-2-2010 by Lasheic]

Originally posted by operation mindcrime

The way I see it, religion is the (lacking a better term here) kindergarten-phase of humanity. An authority looking over us and correcting us when we do wrong because we are not yet able to take the responsibility of using our own common sense.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by operation mindcrime]

I don't quite see it this way. To use your analogy, I would say that our development of religion and interpretation of religious teachings is in the kindergarten -phase of humanity's spiritual development.

It's not the idea of a spiritual moral code of excellence that is flawed but rather as viewed, interpreted, and enacted through imperfect eyes.

It's like our social service system or health care system. We love to trash them, when we don't need them, appreciate them when we do, and often forget that they are the best we have at this point in time.

We are not born with common sense. People around us need to make it common. It usually has been made common through guidance, patience and tolerance. (I could say things made common through religion but I .....)

reply to post by sparrowstail



HAHA Love it... great comments... star

can’t really add more to that

The implication of morality being emergent I raised above reminded me of a speech on TED by Jonathan Haidt regarding moral foundations in regards to the difference between liberals and conservatives. These five (tentatively) foundations were not just observed in humans, but were manifest in the broader animal kingdom. In-group Loyalty and Authority/Respect being two obvious examples in social animals. So evidence of morality in other animals would be a logical implication if our morality is emergent from a brain that evolved these lower level interactions from common ancestors.





Social Modulation of Pain as Evidence for Empathy in Mice

We report the modulation of pain sensitivity in mice produced solely by exposure to their cagemates, but not to strangers, in pain. Mice tested in dyads and given an identical noxious stimulus displayed increased pain behaviors with statistically greater co-occurrence, effects dependent on visual observation. When familiar mice were given noxious stimuli of different intensities, their pain behavior was influenced by their neighbor's status bidirectionally. Finally, observation of a cagemate in pain altered pain sensitivity of an entirely different modality, suggesting that nociceptive mechanisms in general are sensitized.

Empathy is integral to morality, because empathy is the ability to recognize the emotional states of others and correlate them to their own emotional perceptions. This is useful for social animals as a means of priming behavior for interaction. On a higher level, empathy allows for the sharing of emotional states through sympathy and compassion, altruistic displays of affection and aid to help each other. The more intelligent social mammals show the greatest range of this behavior. Primates, Dolphins, and Elephants, being well known examples.

The following video is about 30 minutes long, but well worth the watch in regards to this topic. It is an expanded and more detailed synthesis of Haidt's above mentioned TEDtalk.

Enlightenment 2.0

Google Video Link

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Lasheic


Thanks for all the wonderful information Lasheic.

It will take me some time to work trough but i do believe i agree with most of what you say.....

Peace


[edit on 13-2-2010 by operation mindcrime]