Religion is a source of comfort.

[Woolygimp]

Parents were married for 23 years, and then my dad left my mom for another woman. My mother is 63 years old, and initially she was devastated. However, my mom is very religious and has become even more so after the split and I've never seen her happier. How can someone who's life has been shattered be so optimistic and cheerful? What could she possibly be looking forward to, or where is this source of happiness?

My dad, an atheist, however is at the opposite end of the spectrum. He's about 8 years younger, and even though he left the family for someone else he's devastated. I've had about 6 conversations with him, and in every single one he's barely been able to speak without breaking into tears. He's spiraling into depression, and I'm really worried about him.

So whether or not God exists, the comfort that religion provides appears real even though I cannot fully fathom or comprehend it. Of course my dad could have clinical depression, and my mom could be a happy natured person as there really isn't a large sample size. Just something I wanted to share.

[siegfriedandroy]

if god doesnt exist then the comfort is not real

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
if god doesnt exist then the comfort is not real

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah right.

And what comes to the OP, religion can have a huge comforting effect. It also can have very depressing effects. People who find faith often become happier but people who abandon faith also often find themselves happier. The whole concept of 'belief system' is complicated.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

And what comes to the OP, religion can have a huge comforting effect. It also can have very depressing effects. People who find faith often become happier but people who abandon faith also often find themselves happier. The whole concept of 'belief system' is complicated.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[andyfox]

Listening to the news today, I heard the family of one of the missing soldiers in Iraq say that they were still hoping God would bring their son back to them. And another family say that they were not being pessimistic, but rather were continuing to pray for their son's well-being.

Seems that people grasp onto their religion when they are powerless, or blieve themselves to be powerless, to control events; appealing to God or prayer makes them think they can somehow control a seemingly uncontrollable destiny.

[BIG NIGE]

OMG GOD DOESNT EXIST GET OVER IT ALREADY SHEESH WHATZ RONG WITH PEEPLZ

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
OMG GOD DOESNT EXIST GET OVER IT ALREADY SHEESH WHATZ RONG WITH PEEPLZ

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like someone needs a God hug

[Eihli]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OMG GOD DOESNT EXIST GET OVER IT ALREADY SHEESH WHATZ RONG WITH PEEPLZ

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like someone needs a God hug

[/ QUOTE ]

Look mommy! I'm hugging God! Maybe if I hug him real hard he'll save us from the... BOOOOOOMMMM!!!!!

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OMG GOD DOESNT EXIST GET OVER IT ALREADY SHEESH WHATZ RONG WITH PEEPLZ

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like someone needs a God hug

[/ QUOTE ]

Look mommy! I'm hugging God! Maybe if I hug him real hard he'll save us from the... BOOOOOOMMMM!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

You cheat in Supcom. T3 bombers = overpowered.

[revots33]

For every person comforted by religion there's probably a closeted priest, self-hating homosexual, or guilt-ridden masturbator/pre-marital-sex-participant/lesbian porno fan/etc.

I think self-deluding yourself into believing that something imiaginary is true, in order to feel better during tough times, only exchanges some problems for others. That's not to say belief doesn't have it's benefits, only that you can't ignore the downsides that come along with it.

[ApeAttack]

small sample size.

Also, how do you know your mom wouldn't have been comforted by something else if she didn't have religion?

[Kimbell175113]

[ QUOTE ]
small sample size.

Also, how do you know your mom wouldn't have been comforted by something else if she didn't have religion?

[/ QUOTE ]
or that she would've been torn up a thousand times more if she thought "why would God do this to me?" instead of whatever way she's thinking of it now?

[KUJustin]

I saw a billboard the other day with a sailboat and some message about God and calm waters. I didn't really understand it.

But I think the correct analogy is that if you truly let God into your life in a big way the waters are going to be far less calm but you have the assurance that you won't ever be drowned. So I'm not sure if that falls under comforting or the opposite.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
if god doesnt exist then the comfort is not real

[/ QUOTE ]

this is just stupid.

[Archon_Wing]

People encounter a lot of difficulties in their lives. I mean, you may see all this [censored] up [censored] happen all the time, and there's so little you can do about it. The idea that someone or something is watching over you and will carry over the rough spots can encourage you to live on with your life.

It is no surprise that one major theme in many religions is that the evildoers will be punished. That would make life seem more fair, that another force is balancing things for us. And of course, most of us would never view ourselves as evil, thus we would imaging God, Allah, Buddah, etc would be on our side

Now obviously, I can only speak from my experience. Your mileage may vary. I don't think there's anything wrong with all of this, unless people use it to justify causing harm with it. People have different ways of coping with things, and this is one way.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]



Now obviously, I can only speak from my experience. Your mileage may vary. I don't think there's anything wrong with all of this, unless people use it to justify causing harm with it. People have different ways of coping with things, and this is one way.

[/ QUOTE ]

What Dawkins fails to realize is that religion doesn't cause violence. A violent person will be violent, and the reason the middle east is in turmoil is the same reason that minority neighborhoods here are gang-ridden.

Poverty is a catalyst for crime and violence, and when people are raised in a hard life they turn to violence. I've got a few friends that can speak for this, and there was a time when they would fight someone just to fight them without justification.

Dawkins apparently knows little about human psychology if he blames this on religion.

I'm undecided on God, because I'm young and I'm not going to rush to conclusions. I've decided that I'm going to live my life, be open-minded, and then form my beliefs instead of just taking things on faith.

Let's assume for a moment that God is non-existent, I don't think the human race is ready for it. Most of the posters on this board are intelligent, but you guys don't understand how people operate. The majority of the world's populace is dumb in one sense or another, and I think these people need something to fill that gap. When religion was absent, they turned to government. People feel the need to belong to something larger than themselves, and there may come a day when our race is more intelligent, logical, and reasonable but today is not that day. So for the time being religion is serving a purpose, and that's completely irrelevant to the argument over God's existence.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that when I go to church, I've observed that these are the happiest bunch of people I've ever encountered. Everyone is so damn upbeat, it's almost scary. Again, sample size...but still I couldn't help but notice it.

[Archon_Wing]

I have no idea what you are responding to.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what you are responding to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't necessarily being argumentative, I was just elaborating on that specific statement.

[Archon_Wing]

Ok, I was wondering who the heck was the Dawkins you were talking about.

[Woolygimp]

Supposedly the most outspoken atheist in the world. He not only argues against the existence of God, he argues that religion is dangerous and that it is the root of all evil.

He is very intelligent, and absolutely brilliant at debating. That said, I disagree with most of his views.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
What Dawkins fails to realize is that religion doesn't cause violence. A violent person will be violent...

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps if a violent person will be violent irrespective of religious belief then a strong person will endure pain and suffering irrespective of religious belief also. It seems like you might be claiming the good things in a believer's life are products of religion and the bad things are inevitable parts of who they are.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume for a moment that God is non-existent, I don't think the human race is ready for it. Most of the posters on this board are intelligent, but you guys don't understand how people operate. The majority of the world's populace is dumb in one sense or another, and I think these people need something to fill that gap. When religion was absent, they turned to government. People feel the need to belong to something larger than themselves, and there may come a day when our race is more intelligent, logical, and reasonable but today is not that day. So for the time being religion is serving a purpose, and that's completely irrelevant to the argument over God's existence.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is irrelevant as to whether or not God exists. That can be looked at two ways though - the question of whether or not God exists has an answer irrespective of whether or not religion is net good or bad for the world.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps if a violent person will be violent irrespective of religious belief then a strong person will endure pain and suffering irrespective of religious belief also. It seems like you might be claiming the good things in a believer's life are products of religion and the bad things are inevitable parts of who they are.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course my dad could have clinical depression, and my mom could be a happy natured person as there really isn't a large sample size

[/ QUOTE ]

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps if a violent person will be violent irrespective of religious belief then a strong person will endure pain and suffering irrespective of religious belief also. It seems like you might be claiming the good things in a believer's life are products of religion and the bad things are inevitable parts of who they are.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course my dad could have clinical depression, and my mom could be a happy natured person as there really isn't a large sample size

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand you allow the possibility that religion has no bearing on the situation with your parents. However, you seemed to state as fact that religion doesnt cause violence. ("What dawkins fails to realise..." etc)

Perhaps I misunderstood your point, but that's what I was speaking to. Do you think religion only does good things for people and causes them no harm?

[Taraz]

People use religion to justify just about anything. Religion is a force for good and bad. So is every other ideology on the face of the planet.

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
People use religion to justify just about anything. Religion is a force for good and bad. So is every other ideology on the face of the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly right. What most "crusading atheists" are claiming is that in the end this ideology is useless, pointless. Just like we would be attacking a political ideology which is based on little or no evidence whatsoever we surely can and must attack a religious ideology.

I agree that religion isn't a root of all evil and even Dawkins has said that himself. He found that title unfortunate (though his one aim is to be provocative to raise discussion IMO). I also agree that if religion vanished from the face of the Earth on this moment a huge number of religious people would go into personal chaos. That isn't of course possible since religion by its very nature is something that nothing can simply and suddenly destroy but hypothetically that would be devastating to the world.

However, what Dawkins is arguing and with which I agree is that if children were brought up in a non-religious way, encouraged to be critical and rational, if they would be taught many religions and not just one of them as a truth I'm sure that a large number of these children wouldn't need religion when adults.

Religion can be used for good and evil. Why only attribute good things to religion and say that "these are products of religion" and when bad things happen in the name of religion why say that "these things would happen anyway"? Both good and bad things would happen anyway. Then why not get rid of this ideology? People who haven't brought up in it can live without it. Tolerance, rationality, critical thinking, ultimately the truth - these are the things Dawkins is after and an ideology called religion really doesn't have a positive effect on any of them. One could argue about tolerance but I'm sure people can be tolerant/compassionate without religion. I have "faith" that humans can evolve and rise above superstitions. We are not moral because of religion - we can live without it. So let's get rid of one useless ideology which divides the world in a dangerous and unnecessary way.

And what comes to religious people being happier than other people, well, I don't buy it. I'm not sure if there are studies somewhere but like I said in other thread, religion can cause both misery and comfort. The point is that we can be comfortable without religion and get rid of the ideology of religion and its bad side effects.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People use religion to justify just about anything. Religion is a force for good and bad. So is every other ideology on the face of the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly right. What most "crusading atheists" are claiming is that in the end this ideology is useless, pointless. Just like we would be attacking a political ideology which is based on little or no evidence whatsoever we surely can and must attack a religious ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can anyone claim that religion is useless? First of all, it's pretty much impossible to prove. Second, it's pretty arrogant.

[ QUOTE ]

I agree that religion isn't a root of all evil and even Dawkins has said that himself. He found that title unfortunate (though his one aim is to be provocative to raise discussion IMO). I also agree that if religion vanished from the face of the Earth on this moment a huge number of religious people would go into personal chaos. That isn't of course possible since religion by its very nature is something that nothing can simply and suddenly destroy but hypothetically that would be devastating to the world.

However, what Dawkins is arguing and with which I agree is that if children were brought up in a non-religious way, encouraged to be critical and rational, if they would be taught many religions and not just one of them as a truth I'm sure that a large number of these children wouldn't need religion when adults.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably true, and I agree with it. I would slightly disagree when you say these children wouldn't need religion. Again, there is no way to know. They might want the community aspect, or they might enjoy the mystery. It would clearly be much better if they were taught to be critical and rational about their faith though.

[ QUOTE ]

Religion can be used for good and evil. Why only attribute good things to religion and say that "these are products of religion" and when bad things happen in the name of religion why say that "these things would happen anyway"? Both good and bad things would happen anyway. Then why not get rid of this ideology?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed that only good came from religious belief. I see religion as more of a language that people use to describe and justify their experiences.

[ QUOTE ]

People who haven't brought up in it can live without it. Tolerance, rationality, critical thinking, ultimately the truth - these are the things Dawkins is after and an ideology called religion really doesn't have a positive effect on any of them. One could argue about tolerance but I'm sure people can be tolerant/compassionate without religion. I have "faith" that humans can evolve and rise above superstitions. We are not moral because of religion - we can live without it. So let's get rid of one useless ideology which divides the world in a dangerous and unnecessary way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you have a long, long way to go before you prove that religion is useless. Or that you can even do away with religion altogether without negative consequences.

[ QUOTE ]

And what comes to religious people being happier than other people, well, I don't buy it. I'm not sure if there are studies somewhere but like I said in other thread, religion can cause both misery and comfort. The point is that we can be comfortable without religion and get rid of the ideology of religion and its bad side effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I ever claimed that religious people are happier than atheists/agnostics. Some are, some aren't. Why don't we just try to get rid of the bad side effects instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water? It would be much easier to accomplish than trying to do away with religion altogether.

[m_the0ry]

Religion is a crutch for comfort.

I believe in no God or religious denomination. I am comfortable and I am also not oblivious.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Religion is a crutch for comfort.


[/ QUOTE ]

For arguments sake, let's say that this is true. Can you say with certainty that doing away with this "crutch" will cause more good than harm?

[Archon_Wing]

I don't know, but I don't think there's anything wrong with crutches though.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Religion is a crutch for comfort.


[/ QUOTE ]

For arguments sake, let's say that this is true. Can you say with certainty that doing away with this "crutch" will cause more good than harm?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you never try to stop using the crutches, you'll never be able to function without them. Why get rid of them?

Because you can't run as fast.

[txag007]

This is incredible. Thank you, Revots.

[ QUOTE ]
For every person comforted by religion there's probably a closeted priest, self-hating homosexual, or guilt-ridden masturbator/pre-marital-sex-participant/lesbian porno fan/etc.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is a meaningless statement in that you have no way of knowing whether or not it is true. It is, however, obvious that believing this statement makes you feel better about what you choose to believe about God's existence.

Oh wait...look at this. Revots uses his next paragraph to address exactly that, the problems that come with believing something is true in order to feel better about your other beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
I think self-deluding yourself into believing that something imiaginary is true, in order to feel better during tough times, only exchanges some problems for others. That's not to say belief doesn't have it's benefits, only that you can't ignore the downsides that come along with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well said Revots. You should listen to your own advice.

[txag007]

The analogy that works from my experience is that when life surrounds you like a raging storm, God's power can comfort you in such a way that keeps you calm in the midst of the storm. This what Paul spoke of when he instructed the Colossians to let the peace of Christ rule in your heart.

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People use religion to justify just about anything. Religion is a force for good and bad. So is every other ideology on the face of the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly right. What most "crusading atheists" are claiming is that in the end this ideology is useless, pointless. Just like we would be attacking a political ideology which is based on little or no evidence whatsoever we surely can and must attack a religious ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can anyone claim that religion is useless? First of all, it's pretty much impossible to prove. Second, it's pretty arrogant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can one not argue that religion is useless? Let's imagine an ideology which states that all money should be burned and that we have to pay "in nature" only. Most people would say that the idea is stupid and that the ideology supporting that is useless in a sense that it doesn't do any good to society or to our world. It might have good side effects but wouldn't it be better to just try to take the good side effects to practice and discard the useless ideology?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I agree that religion isn't a root of all evil and even Dawkins has said that himself. He found that title unfortunate (though his one aim is to be provocative to raise discussion IMO). I also agree that if religion vanished from the face of the Earth on this moment a huge number of religious people would go into personal chaos. That isn't of course possible since religion by its very nature is something that nothing can simply and suddenly destroy but hypothetically that would be devastating to the world.

However, what Dawkins is arguing and with which I agree is that if children were brought up in a non-religious way, encouraged to be critical and rational, if they would be taught many religions and not just one of them as a truth I'm sure that a large number of these children wouldn't need religion when adults.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably true, and I agree with it. I would slightly disagree when you say these children wouldn't need religion. Again, there is no way to know. They might want the community aspect, or they might enjoy the mystery. It would clearly be much better if they were taught to be critical and rational about their faith though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, probably some would "fall" into superstitions like the serious hardcore astrologists today but it would be quite minor, I'm sure. There are people living today who don't need religion and they live in a world full of religion. What if the world wasn't full of religion? Children simply wouldn't have the need to build their world views around a Creator if they are taught the things I mentioned.

This is of course a huge task. What I'm stating here is that the world should become more sophisticated and intelligent. It's not a coincidence that most top scientists don't believe in a Creator. Do you have to be very intelligent in order to be non-religious? I think in some way you have to be more enlightened simply because non-religiousness requires analytical, critical thinking and not all people today are capable of that. That should be our goal, though. Just as we try to make the whole world able to read we should try to make the whole world able to be non-religious. Some sorts of superstitions will always be around, I'm sure, but anything we can do to help the situation is good.

People can enjoy the mystery without religion. Again, Einsteinian sense of God etc. The community aspect is strong, sure. People have a need to belong. Hopefully the world doesn't become so individualistic that the only place to do that is a place to worship a Creator.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Religion can be used for good and evil. Why only attribute good things to religion and say that "these are products of religion" and when bad things happen in the name of religion why say that "these things would happen anyway"? Both good and bad things would happen anyway. Then why not get rid of this ideology?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed that only good came from religious belief. I see religion as more of a language that people use to describe and justify their experiences.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was responding generally, I know you didn't claim that. The analogy of religion as a language is not good though. Language is just a mean to communicate. It is by its nature trying to be neutral. Religion isn't neutral, it has substance which it is trying to spread. I agree that religion has probably been born from a need to discuss this aspect of our emotions but I don't think it is as harmless as you make it sound to be. I think it would be better if we talked about that stuff "in another language", in a language of analytical thinking for example.

Generally I'm not saying that feelings or sense of a mystery is useless or stupid or whatever. Far from it. I'm saying that we should be able to discuss about that stuff without superstitions/dogmas. We should not be uber-rational robots uncapable of emotion or appreciation of love and beauty. We should strive to discuss and view those things in another way than a religious dogmatic way.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

People who haven't brought up in it can live without it. Tolerance, rationality, critical thinking, ultimately the truth - these are the things Dawkins is after and an ideology called religion really doesn't have a positive effect on any of them. One could argue about tolerance but I'm sure people can be tolerant/compassionate without religion. I have "faith" that humans can evolve and rise above superstitions. We are not moral because of religion - we can live without it. So let's get rid of one useless ideology which divides the world in a dangerous and unnecessary way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you have a long, long way to go before you prove that religion is useless. Or that you can even do away with religion altogether without negative consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, why don't you tell me why we would need religion? Religion isn't the only way to talk about the mystical experiences we have like I stated in the last paragraph. If we continue to compare religion to an ideology, what inherently good stuff can an ideology contain that isn't otherwise reachable? Ideologies are human made. They are packages that we have created. They contain stuff that we put there.

Can we be good and moral and nice and compassionate and tolerant without religion? Yes. If someone claims otherwise he's saying that all atheists are bad or some other nonsense and he must not be taken seriously. Religion isn't a source of our morals. Religion didn't build our moral codes, I'd say it's the other way around and that our moral codes help built religion.

Like I previously said, if religion would vanish now at this very second many people would go into personal chaos and as a result the world would go into chaos. But as you agreed with me before, children should be taught differently. They should not be encouraged to build their world views and personal images around a Creator. If we take away this belief in a Creator, why it would have negative consequences?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And what comes to religious people being happier than other people, well, I don't buy it. I'm not sure if there are studies somewhere but like I said in other thread, religion can cause both misery and comfort. The point is that we can be comfortable without religion and get rid of the ideology of religion and its bad side effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I ever claimed that religious people are happier than atheists/agnostics. Some are, some aren't. Why don't we just try to get rid of the bad side effects instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water? It would be much easier to accomplish than trying to do away with religion altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, it's much easier to try to modify religion to be better than to get rid of it. The difficulty of the task is still not an argument against the idea that religious ideology is useless. Useless in a sense that even though some people find it useful it isn't necessary. So maybe the better word would be unnecessary.

In any case, what I'm championing here and what most "crusading atheists" that I've heard of are promoting is that we should be able to criticize religion and that we should get rid of religion's special status which does not belong to it. A dogmatic religious belief system is bad because people can live without it. If it didn't have any negative side effects I'm sure nobody would mind religion but it has side effects and it's a huge force in our world. Therefore the goal should be to get rid of this unnecessary ideology.

How to prove that religion is "useless"? Why not try to make the world non-religious, non-dogmatic and let's see what happens? We are fighting against racism, intolerace, ignorance etc. You agree that religion has bad side effects. If we try to modify religion to be better ultimately we're trying to modify it to be not a religion anymore.

If this comes off as arrogant that's not my purpose but I guess it cannot be completely avoided either. I just don't see any inherently positive effects that only dogmatic religion can provide us.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The analogy that works from my experience is that when life surrounds you like a raging storm, God's power can comfort you in such a way that keeps you calm in the midst of the storm. This what Paul spoke of when he instructed the Colossians to let the peace of Christ rule in your heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, txagoo7, your god is a puny one, mine is capable of getting rid of the storm rather than just calm me with some inane babbling, in my heart or in my head. Others, have gods that, presumably, guide you so that you can avoid storms. They are navigators type gods. I was a navigator at one point in my life, blue water racing.. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Anyway, your god is a god of delusion... he keeps you calm and placid when you should be fast and acting.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Why can one not argue that religion is useless? Let's imagine an ideology which states that all money should be burned and that we have to pay "in nature" only. Most people would say that the idea is stupid and that the ideology supporting that is useless in a sense that it doesn't do any good to society or to our world. It might have good side effects but wouldn't it be better to just try to take the good side effects to practice and discard the useless ideology?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're free to try to prove that religion is useless. But we are so far away from knowing that that I think it's kind of ridiculous to state it as fact. I wouldn't object if you wanted to claim that certain specific beliefs are useless. But humanity has always had religion throughout it's history and it's pretty silly for you to step right up and dismiss the whole enterprise as useless. Obviously we've had a need for it for ages.

[ QUOTE ]

Well, probably some would "fall" into superstitions like the serious hardcore astrologists today but it would be quite minor, I'm sure. There are people living today who don't need religion and they live in a world full of religion. What if the world wasn't full of religion? Children simply wouldn't have the need to build their world views around a Creator if they are taught the things I mentioned.

This is of course a huge task. What I'm stating here is that the world should become more sophisticated and intelligent. It's not a coincidence that most top scientists don't believe in a Creator. Do you have to be very intelligent in order to be non-religious? I think in some way you have to be more enlightened simply because non-religiousness requires analytical, critical thinking and not all people today are capable of that. That should be our goal, though. Just as we try to make the whole world able to read we should try to make the whole world able to be non-religious. Some sorts of superstitions will always be around, I'm sure, but anything we can do to help the situation is good.

People can enjoy the mystery without religion. Again, Einsteinian sense of God etc. The community aspect is strong, sure. People have a need to belong. Hopefully the world doesn't become so individualistic that the only place to do that is a place to worship a Creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's weird because I pretty much agree with you on every point here. My only adjustment would be to change the phrase "non-religious" to "non-dogmatic". I guess this gets back to the definition of "religion".

[ QUOTE ]

The analogy of religion as a language is not good though. Language is just a mean to communicate. It is by its nature trying to be neutral. Religion isn't neutral, it has substance which it is trying to spread. I agree that religion has probably been born from a need to discuss this aspect of our emotions but I don't think it is as harmless as you make it sound to be. I think it would be better if we talked about that stuff "in another language", in a language of analytical thinking for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstood me slightly or maybe I was unclear. People use their religion to describe experiences for which they have no words. I don't know if you've ever had any spiritual experiences before, but people don't know how to describe them other than "God spoke to me" or something similar. We also use religion as metaphor and to describe our relationship with the unknown. I realize that this is a hard thing to grasp, but people use religion to describe what they don't know or don't have words for. Obviously I think it's necessary to educate people about the world so they don't keep interfering with what we currently know about the world.

[ QUOTE ]

Generally I'm not saying that feelings or sense of a mystery is useless or stupid or whatever. Far from it. I'm saying that we should be able to discuss about that stuff without superstitions/dogmas. We should not be uber-rational robots uncapable of emotion or appreciation of love and beauty. We should strive to discuss and view those things in another way than a religious dogmatic way.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're in complete agreement.

[ QUOTE ]

Well, why don't you tell me why we would need religion? Religion isn't the only way to talk about the mystical experiences we have like I stated in the last paragraph. If we continue to compare religion to an ideology, what inherently good stuff can an ideology contain that isn't otherwise reachable? Ideologies are human made. They are packages that we have created. They contain stuff that we put there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again it depends on your definition of religion. I would counter, how are you sure they we don't need it on a societal scale? Again, I'm not talking about specific dogmatic beliefs, just the language, principles, and community of religion. We might be able to replace it with some other system, but it would still be what I call a religion.


[ QUOTE ]

Can we be good and moral and nice and compassionate and tolerant without religion? Yes. If someone claims otherwise he's saying that all atheists are bad or some other nonsense and he must not be taken seriously. Religion isn't a source of our morals. Religion didn't build our moral codes, I'd say it's the other way around and that our moral codes help built religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but often the best morality of a time is codified by a religion. By spreading this religion you are spreading this version of morality. Again, it's not particularly relevant now, but this is how things have gone historically.

[ QUOTE ]

Like I previously said, if religion would vanish now at this very second many people would go into personal chaos and as a result the world would go into chaos. But as you agreed with me before, children should be taught differently. They should not be encouraged to build their world views and personal images around a Creator. If we take away this belief in a Creator, why it would have negative consequences?

[/ QUOTE ]

That wouldn't eliminate religion necessarily.

[ QUOTE ]

You're right, it's much easier to try to modify religion to be better than to get rid of it. The difficulty of the task is still not an argument against the idea that religious ideology is useless. Useless in a sense that even though some people find it useful it isn't necessary. So maybe the better word would be unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I think we should try to modify because elimination on any relevant time-scale is impossible IMO.

[ QUOTE ]

In any case, what I'm championing here and what most "crusading atheists" that I've heard of are promoting is that we should be able to criticize religion and that we should get rid of religion's special status which does not belong to it. A dogmatic religious belief system is bad because people can live without it. If it didn't have any negative side effects I'm sure nobody would mind religion but it has side effects and it's a huge force in our world. Therefore the goal should be to get rid of this unnecessary ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am all for criticizing the dogmatic and harmful elements of religion. But that is hardly eliminating religion as a whole. People are always going to be organizing their beliefs and coming up with names for these belief systems. I guess I don't understand what the difference between a personal philosophy and a religion is.

[JussiUt]

I'm seeing that we're pretty much agreeing on everything except on the definition of 'religion'. You're right this all gets back to the definition of it.

This is Webster Online Dictionary's definition of religion:

[ QUOTE ]
1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality".

2. Institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him".

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a divine power involved.

If the point you're making is that if one uses God in a metaphorical sense he's still religious, I think you're using the word 'religious' way too liberally. We agree that we should enlighten people and get rid of religious dogmas. If we take those dogmas out, what is left of religion?

a) the spiritual element. A feeling that there's something bigger than us. Usually related to mystical, spiritual experiences (which I've had in my mind). And if we want people to be reasonable they must be agnostic about God. What we're left with is a mystical, agnostic way of talking about the mystery of the universe. This is basically the Einsteinian way of using the word 'God'. Maybe I should've been more clear what I mean by Einsteinian.

b) the community aspect. You're right, people have a need to belong to a community and discuss about their feelings to a degree. But I'm not sure if there's any sense for these "enlightened, modified" Christians to pray to a higher power since they don't believe at least in a personal one anymore. The communities will find other ways of functioning.

Besides, do you see atheists/agnostics gathering together? I don't. Some may go to a church because of their social network but if all people think like those few the church loses its meaning. I wouldn't say religious communities or gatherings are necessary at all. People can find ways to happiness without chruch meetings. It's happening right now.

I know that you think we should try to modify religion instead of trying to get rid of it. What I'm saying to you is that we agree and are just talking about the different sides of the same coin. I'm all for making current religions more liberal. That's the only way, nobody can make religion vanish. What I'm saying to you that you're proposing a gradual modification of religion to a point where I would be not calling it a religion anymore. We both have the same goal basically.

Where we differ is the definition of religion and perhaps the community aspect of religion. If people are mystical and agnostic and they are using the word 'God' metaphorically I wouldn't call them religious. You say you don't see the difference between a personal philosophy and a religion. Maybe that's the source of our apparent disagreement (even though we think very much alike I think). You should see the difference. A liberal, agnostic, mystical, metaphorical, personal philosophy about God is a completely different animal than the current religions.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm seeing that we're pretty much agreeing on everything except on the definition of 'religion'. You're right this all gets back to the definition of it.

This is Webster Online Dictionary's definition of religion:

[ QUOTE ]
1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality".

2. Institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him".

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a divine power involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only it were that easy. There is a HUGE debate on what the definition of religion is. The Encyclopedia of Religion defines religion in the following way:


In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

And I'm sure there are countless people who would disagree with this definition as well.
[ QUOTE ]

If the point you're making is that if one uses God in a metaphorical sense he's still religious, I think you're using the word 'religious' way too liberally. We agree that we should enlighten people and get rid of religious dogmas. If we take those dogmas out, what is left of religion?

a) the spiritual element. A feeling that there's something bigger than us. Usually related to mystical, spiritual experiences (which I've had in my mind). And if we want people to be reasonable they must be agnostic about God. What we're left with is a mystical, agnostic way of talking about the mystery of the universe. This is basically the Einsteinian way of using the word 'God'. Maybe I should've been more clear what I mean by Einsteinian.

b) the community aspect. You're right, people have a need to belong to a community and discuss about their feelings to a degree. But I'm not sure if there's any sense for these "enlightened, modified" Christians to pray to a higher power since they don't believe at least in a personal one anymore. The communities will find other ways of functioning.

Besides, do you see atheists/agnostics gathering together? I don't. Some may go to a church because of their social network but if all people think like those few the church loses its meaning. I wouldn't say religious communities or gatherings are necessary at all. People can find ways to happiness without chruch meetings. It's happening right now.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're quite mistaken that atheists and agnostics don't congregate. There are many "liberal" congregations of the various world religions and there are many atheist organizations.

People will naturally congregate and associate with people who share their experiences and interpretation of the world. When these shared experiences and interpretations have to do with anything spiritual, mystical, or beyond our current knowledge I would see that as tending toward religious belief.

[ QUOTE ]

I know that you think we should try to modify religion instead of trying to get rid of it. What I'm saying to you is that we agree and are just talking about the different sides of the same coin. I'm all for making current religions more liberal. That's the only way, nobody can make religion vanish. What I'm saying to you that you're proposing a gradual modification of religion to a point where I would be not calling it a religion anymore. We both have the same goal basically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why it is so frustrating to me. I don't think you realize that many people would agree with you but still call themselves "religious". When you rail against "religion" and "God" they perceive it as an attack on them and they tune you out. Or worse yet, they circle the wagons and actually do protect some of the more ridiculous beliefs.

There are also those who consider themselves religious, but haven't really thought about or evaluated some of the supernatural claims of religion. They don't even know half of the claims their religion makes. I guarantee that if you poll Christians, you'd find that many of them don't even know about all the deplorable sections of the Old Testament. That's why it's insane for atheists to say, "your religion says X is true." Their religion DOESN'T say that it's true. That doesn't make it less of a religion in my view, it's just a different religion. Everyone's religion is their personal philosophy. EVERYONE picks and chooses.

Do you understand where I'm going with this? You don't need to eliminate Christianity to accomplish what you're trying to accomplish. And trying to eliminate Christianity makes your end goal even harder to achieve.

[JussiUt]

Sorry, I don't have time to answer right now even though this is very interesting.

I'll edit my answer to this post tomorrow or whatever ten or so hours from now is where you live.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if god doesnt exist then the comfort is not real

[/ QUOTE ]

this is just stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
If only it were that easy. There is a HUGE debate on what the definition of religion is. The Encyclopedia of Religion defines religion in the following way

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, sure. Like I said, we've clearly had different definitions of religion in mind. If you want to use the largest definition possible that's fine but I don't like it.

I guess we have to make a distinction between a-theism and a-religiousness. I'm a strong advocate of the first but if the latter is an agnostic, mystical, non-dogmatic and personal version of religion then I don't think that's a problem in the world.

[ QUOTE ]
think you're quite mistaken that atheists and agnostics don't congregate. There are many "liberal" congregations of the various world religions and there are many atheist organizations.

People will naturally congregate and associate with people who share their experiences and interpretation of the world. When these shared experiences and interpretations have to do with anything spiritual, mystical, or beyond our current knowledge I would see that as tending toward religious belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say you still overemphasize the community aspect of religion. Secularization has been a strong force at least in Europe so I don't see how atheists have this urgent need to congregate at least very often. Sure, people love to speak about their experiences and again people have a strong tendency to be apart of a community but individualism and secularism are strong forces too.

If only the community aspect of religion survives you're still free to call it a religion. I wouldn't because it would be completely different from other religions of the past. A better word for it would be nice.

I understand your frustration. One thing you have to bear in mind is that I'm talking to you here on this board way differently than I would be talking to a stranger or someone religious. I know that by attacking God and religion directly and strongly it doesn't bear good results.

The main "disagreement" we have between us isn't the goal we want to achieve. You like to call the end goal as a sort of religion too. Ok, fine. Definitions are definitions. I don't like to use the word religion there.

The main disagreement isn't even the mean by which we want to achieve that goal. Your psychological points make sense and I agree. I know people have very personal faiths and it's usually awful to put words into other person't mouth in this instance.

I understand where you're going with this. You like to call the end goal Christianity too. Again I wouldn't. The main point of Christianity is a belief in Christ. If you don't have that belief the whole word loses its meaning. I guess you want to keep that word alive for tactical reasons. That's fine and that's probably the only way to achieve the goal we have. Just undestand that we're both trying to eliminate Christianity in every sense possible except for the name part.

I don't think we have any main disagreements at all. That's kind of sad actually, have we really been dancing around the issue and not been getting what the other has tried to say? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I'd say you still overemphasize the community aspect of religion. Secularization has been a strong force at least in Europe so I don't see how atheists have this urgent need to congregate at least very often. Sure, people love to speak about their experiences and again people have a strong tendency to be apart of a community but individualism and secularism are strong forces too.

If only the community aspect of religion survives you're still free to call it a religion. I wouldn't because it would be completely different from other religions of the past. A better word for it would be nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a slight misunderstanding here. I was just saying that people with similar "mystical" beliefs will congregate. By your definition, Buddhism isn't a religion even though it has been considered one for thousands of years.

(And on a slightly unrelated note, individualism is a very, very western and particularly American idea.)

[ QUOTE ]

I understand your frustration. One thing you have to bear in mind is that I'm talking to you here on this board way differently than I would be talking to a stranger or someone religious. I know that by attacking God and religion directly and strongly it doesn't bear good results.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad to hear it. Many others don't share this insight unfortunately.

[ QUOTE ]

The main "disagreement" we have between us isn't the goal we want to achieve. You like to call the end goal as a sort of religion too. Ok, fine. Definitions are definitions. I don't like to use the word religion there.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I would just argue that that is the way the word has been used and is used. A few Eastern 'religions' wouldn't qualify for you and many 'religious' Christians, Jews, and Muslims wouldn't qualify as 'religious'. Just semantics though.

[ QUOTE ]

The main disagreement isn't even the mean by which we want to achieve that goal. Your psychological points make sense and I agree. I know people have very personal faiths and it's usually awful to put words into other person't mouth in this instance.

I understand where you're going with this. You like to call the end goal Christianity too. Again I wouldn't. The main point of Christianity is a belief in Christ. If you don't have that belief the whole word loses its meaning. I guess you want to keep that word alive for tactical reasons. That's fine and that's probably the only way to achieve the goal we have. Just undestand that we're both trying to eliminate Christianity in every sense possible except for the name part.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree here. Christianity is more than just the belief that Jesus died for your sins and all that. Just ask PairTheBoard /images/graemlins/smile.gif. But seriously, religion is much more for many, many people. It gives people a way to organize their life and make sense of something that doesn't make sense. Humans naturally search for meaning, connections, and reasons for everything and 'we don't know yet' is not satisfactory for lots of people. I realize that you don't feel that you need anything like that in your life, and I'm not even sure if anybody actually does need it when everything is said and done. But in this point in history, many people do.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think we have any main disagreements at all. That's kind of sad actually, have we really been dancing around the issue and not been getting what the other has tried to say? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Lots of the debate has been just an argument over what the word religion should mean, although it has been interesting at nonetheless. I really think my last paragraph above had a few important points though.

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
think there is a slight misunderstanding here. I was just saying that people with similar "mystical" beliefs will congregate. By your definition, Buddhism isn't a religion even though it has been considered one for thousands of years.

(And on a slightly unrelated note, individualism is a very, very western and particularly American idea.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It's true that most forms of buddhism are atheistic and therefore I'm kind of considering it to be a very different kind of religion. However, in buddhim there's a belief in reincarnation and there are also these teachers or spiritual leaders or whatever. In the kind of 'mysticism' I mean there wouldn't be need for hierarchical structures or leaders because people would realize that their feelings are subjective and personal - no other person can "teach" them any truths. They can discuss among themselves but the whole hierarchical structure of religion is gone. Naturally the idea of reincarnation is kind of like a dogma and therefore it's not the kind of mysticism or spiritualism I'm talking about here.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad to hear it. Many others don't share this insight unfortunately.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to determine what is the best way to talk about this stuff with non-hardcore believers and random people in general. It's all so dependant on the situation. But I agree, a full-blown attack against something that the person may not even believe in but he becomes offended anyway because of the terminology is not generally a good idea to achieve any "results".

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I would just argue that that is the way the word has been used and is used. A few Eastern 'religions' wouldn't qualify for you and many 'religious' Christians, Jews, and Muslims wouldn't qualify as 'religious'. Just semantics though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, in order for a religion to be a religion it has to have some kind of common truths and a hierarchy. I'm advocating the kind of spiritualism that is personal and agnostic. The concept of religion doesn't fit well into that. This once again comes down to definitions.

And yes, I would not call all 'religious' Christians religious because even if they call themselves Christians or they go Church they still might not be "actual" Christians. I don't like how one term can be interpreted in any way one pleases. That creates chaos and confusion and that isn't good.

You can say that you don't need to believe in Jesus or any of the dogmas in order to be Christian. I just disagree. If you widen the concept too much Christianity could mean anything one person wants it to mean. Even though we're talking about religion and that by its very nature is very personal we still have to have some kind of rules how to use critical terms. Hell, even I could be defined as a Christian as some of the people I know have done just because "I try to live a good ethical life". If all people who strive to be ethical are Christians the term becomes useless.

[ QUOTE ]
It gives people a way to organize their life and make sense of something that doesn't make sense. Humans naturally search for meaning, connections, and reasons for everything and 'we don't know yet' is not satisfactory for lots of people. I realize that you don't feel that you need anything like that in your life, and I'm not even sure if anybody actually does need it when everything is said and done.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my point. If we achieve the goal we've been discussing here it's not obvious at all that people will need an organization called a church. People will find other ways to communicate. The goal should be to make all people capable of saying "I don't know". That's the agnostic component I have so often mentioned. I don't know if we can achieve this goal but I want to hope we can.

History has shown that there's a huge need for religious organisations and for religions in general. I'm claiming that there's a possibility that the need for organized religions disappear when people either become completely atheistic or even if they have some sort of feeling of a higher power they consider it to be personal and subjective.

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed. Lots of the debate has been just an argument over what the word religion should mean, although it has been interesting at nonetheless. I really think my last paragraph above had a few important points though.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been and continues to be very interesting. The definitions have been in the core of our debate but it's a useful debate to have. I just dislike using terms like religion and a Christian too liberally because then we don't know what we're talking about.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume for a moment that God is non-existent, I don't think the human race is ready for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The human race is a collection of individuals. Many can reason, some never will. Spreading misinformation as truth to protect those who can't reason only hurts those with the potential to do so.

Quantum mechanics is also a very difficult concept. Most of the human race can not understand it. This doesn't mean we should all pretend that QM theories don't exist because some can't handle them.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

In the kind of 'mysticism' I mean there wouldn't be need for hierarchical structures or leaders because people would realize that their feelings are subjective and personal - no other person can "teach" them any truths. They can discuss among themselves but the whole hierarchical structure of religion is gone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mind hierarchical structure so much as long as they teach what they believe without claiming that it is necessarily true. More of a "this is my experience, take from it what you will" and a "this is how things were historically practiced" kind of attitude. A little more objective approach would be appreciated. I also don't mind if they have organizational and/or administrative duties or anything like that.

[ QUOTE ]

Like I said, in order for a religion to be a religion it has to have some kind of common truths and a hierarchy. I'm advocating the kind of spiritualism that is personal and agnostic. The concept of religion doesn't fit well into that. This once again comes down to definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if you replace the word "truths" with "beliefs"?

[ QUOTE ]

And yes, I would not call all 'religious' Christians religious because even if they call themselves Christians or they go Church they still might not be "actual" Christians. I don't like how one term can be interpreted in any way one pleases. That creates chaos and confusion and that isn't good.

You can say that you don't need to believe in Jesus or any of the dogmas in order to be Christian. I just disagree. If you widen the concept too much Christianity could mean anything one person wants it to mean. Even though we're talking about religion and that by its very nature is very personal we still have to have some kind of rules how to use critical terms. Hell, even I could be defined as a Christian as some of the people I know have done just because "I try to live a good ethical life". If all people who strive to be ethical are Christians the term becomes useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed that people who don't believe in Jesus are Christians. I do think those that don't think he was God incarnate, but believe Jesus to have been the most insightful prophet and try to live their life according to his teachings qualify as Christians.

[ QUOTE ]

This is my point. If we achieve the goal we've been discussing here it's not obvious at all that people will need an organization called a church. People will find other ways to communicate. The goal should be to make all people capable of saying "I don't know". That's the agnostic component I have so often mentioned. I don't know if we can achieve this goal but I want to hope we can.

History has shown that there's a huge need for religious organisations and for religions in general. I'm claiming that there's a possibility that the need for organized religions disappear when people either become completely atheistic or even if they have some sort of feeling of a higher power they consider it to be personal and subjective.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it's not obvious that people will need this organizations. But it's also not obvious that they won't. I'm just saying that we should take our time and see how it develops. It would be kind of silly to claim certainty one way or the other. You might say I'm agnostic on this issue.

[ QUOTE ]

This has been and continues to be very interesting. The definitions have been in the core of our debate but it's a useful debate to have. I just dislike using terms like religion and a Christian too liberally because then we don't know what we're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, a lot of times I think most of the disagreement between people is just a difference of opinion with regard to these definitions. I like to defer to the believer on the definitions. If you call yourself religious, you're religious. If you call yourself Christian, you're Christian. Obviously there are caveats, like if you call yourself Christian but have only read the Quran or something, but in general I think it catches most people of faith.

[JussiUt]

There are still a couple of points I want to make.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mind hierarchical structure so much as long as they teach what they believe without claiming that it is necessarily true. More of a "this is my experience, take from it what you will" and a "this is how things were historically practiced" kind of attitude. A little more objective approach would be appreciated. I also don't mind if they have organizational and/or administrative duties or anything like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is pretty much my view also. No more religious authorities but objective discussion amongst the 'believers'. Teaching the history of religion is naturally important. Teachers who teach history and stuff are naturally welcomed but what I mean by the hierarchy is that there are no more people who claim to have a better understanding of the spiritual than the rest of us. That's probably impossible, there will always be people who claim to have seen a vision and who want to enjoy power but the minute this 'organization' moves into that direction it becomes irrational and unwanted for the rest of us.

[ QUOTE ]
What if you replace the word "truths" with "beliefs"?

[/ QUOTE ]

We have same kinds of beliefs. Do atheism count as a religion? If there are no religious authorities and therefore no religious hierarchy, simply because people have the same views doesn't mean it's a religion. Besides, in this ultimate utopia of mine people would think these experiences they have are always in some way subjective so even though people can discuss their experiences together doesn't mean they have exactly similar beliefs. It's a thin line, I know. What I also know is that this is never possible. As long as people feel spiritual experiences and they think there's some higher power involved they will always eventually create dogmas and form hierarchies and meditative customs and generate leaders who claim they know better.

[ QUOTE ]
I never claimed that people who don't believe in Jesus are Christians. I do think those that don't think he was God incarnate, but believe Jesus to have been the most insightful prophet and try to live their life according to his teachings qualify as Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I mean by "believing in Jesus" is the belief that he somehow conveyed the message of God. It doesn't matter whether they really think he was God incarnate or just a prophet (who believes this, the muslims?), they count as Christians if they think there's a God and Jesus was his messenger.

I can think Jesus was a good philosopher and I can try to live by his teachings but that doesn't make me a Christian.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree it's not obvious that people will need this organizations. But it's also not obvious that they won't. I'm just saying that we should take our time and see how it develops. It would be kind of silly to claim certainty one way or the other. You might say I'm agnostic on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, there's no way to know for sure. One could say that I think it's very possible and one could say you're a little more skeptic.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, a lot of times I think most of the disagreement between people is just a difference of opinion with regard to these definitions. I like to defer to the believer on the definitions. If you call yourself religious, you're religious. If you call yourself Christian, you're Christian. Obviously there are caveats, like if you call yourself Christian but have only read the Quran or something, but in general I think it catches most people of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, these definitions are tricky and confusing. I'm not always willing to use the terms that "the debate partner" wants to use though. It's usually a good enough tactic but sometimes when we move to a more general discussion it will cause confusion.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

there are no more people who claim to have a better understanding of the spiritual than the rest of us. That's probably impossible, there will always be people who claim to have seen a vision and who want to enjoy power but the minute this 'organization' moves into that direction it becomes irrational and unwanted for the rest of us.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this will be impossible. There will always be those monks or even people who have been religious for longer who can claim to have a deeper understanding of the spiritual. I would just hope that people realize that this increased familiarity doesn't mean they necessarily have increased knowledge.

[ QUOTE ]

We have same kinds of beliefs. Do atheism count as a religion? If there are no religious authorities and therefore no religious hierarchy, simply because people have the same views doesn't mean it's a religion. Besides, in this ultimate utopia of mine people would think these experiences they have are always in some way subjective so even though people can discuss their experiences together doesn't mean they have exactly similar beliefs. It's a thin line, I know. What I also know is that this is never possible. As long as people feel spiritual experiences and they think there's some higher power involved they will always eventually create dogmas and form hierarchies and meditative customs and generate leaders who claim they know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I misspoke a little bit. I should have said, "beliefs about what is fundamentally unknowable" or something like that. For example, people with similar beliefs about the afterlife or the origin of the universe. Those would qualify as religious views in my mind. This extends to those who truly believe in string theory or other theories that don't have much scientific evidence behind them.

[ QUOTE ]

What I mean by "believing in Jesus" is the belief that he somehow conveyed the message of God. It doesn't matter whether they really think he was God incarnate or just a prophet (who believes this, the muslims?), they count as Christians if they think there's a God and Jesus was his messenger.

I can think Jesus was a good philosopher and I can try to live by his teachings but that doesn't make me a Christian.


[/ QUOTE ]

Muslims, many Jews, and many Christians believe that Jesus was a messenger of God but not necessarily God on Earth. But yeah, I agree with what you're saying. I meant prophet from God when I simply said 'prophet'.

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, these definitions are tricky and confusing. I'm not always willing to use the terms that "the debate partner" wants to use though. It's usually a good enough tactic but sometimes when we move to a more general discussion it will cause confusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's why these conversations are so difficult to have. It takes time to figure out exactly where the other person is coming from and you need to do that before you can have meaningful discussion.