# Reading > Religious Texts >  Exactly HOW is religion supposed to give meaning to life?

## SleepyWitch

Believers often say that you need religion because life would be pointless otherwise. But how exactly does religion give meaning to life? Looking at the 'great' monotheistic religions (I don't know enough about the others) it seems that they mainly tell people _how_ to live their lives, i.e. they give them rules about family life, how to worship God etc. But that's not really what I would call 'meaning' or 'purpose'. E.g. the purpose of a pair of scissors is to cut things, i.e. an action outside the scissors themselves. We wouldn't normally say that the purpose of scissors is to have two blades and a handle with two holes for stickin your finers in and a screw in the middle for the blades to open etc (= rules for a good pair of scissors). Whereas rules for a 'religious' life do not refer to any purpose outside life itself... unless maybe you assume that sticking to those rules will make people happy, thus turning their life from a mere life into a happy one. But I don't remember the Bible etc. promising anyone happiness.
So is it supposed to be the promise of a life after death that gives 'meaning' to this life?
Other arguments seem kind of circular to me, e.g. 'The purpose of life is to please God.' So what?
Anyway, I'd like to know why religious people think that religion gives meaning to their life and I'd like to hear some non-circular arguments.

----------


## Freudian Monkey

I think you pretty much answered your own question. 

God is an easy solution.

----------


## cl154576

It's an easy solution, and I think it satisfies some other basic needs – moral comfort, an accepting community sometimes (in my area a lot of atheists go to church just to socialize), and an output for spirituality.

----------


## Red-Headed

A lot of things can give meaning to life, none of them have to be religion.

----------


## Whifflingpin

I think that you are right in saying that the purpose of religion is not to tell you how to live your life - that is however a likely consequence of a religious view.

I think it is purely a question of definition. Observation and experience can inform us about all the whats and hows that we are capable of understanding, but in the last resort they cannot say why anything is as it is. Observation and analysis of a stone or an ant can provide all sorts of information about those objects but cannot show whether or not the stone or ant or anything else has any cosmic purpose or significance. Observation and analysis of things_as_they_are will not provide any kind of answer to a question like, "Is it OK to use a stone to squash an ant?" or even the question "does it make any sense to ask "is it OK?"?"

Religion does not give meaning to life, except in the sense that when you state that life has a meaning, then you are making a religious statement. 

If you go on from the bald (and bold) assertion that life has a meaning, and then attempt to formulate what that meaning is, i.e. codify the religion, then you might rapidly find that the meaning has implications for how to conduct your life. Then you might have a frame of reference in which "Is it OK to use a stone to squash an ant?" has a meaning.

----------


## Red-Headed

> Religion does not give meaning to life, except in the sense that when you state that life has a meaning, then you are making a religious statement.


Why? Ethics doesn't even have to be dependent on religion, neither do existentialist notions of reality & meaning.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Ethics doesn't even have to be dependent on religion"

As I said, it's a question of definition. Ethics certainly does not have to be dependent on a belief in God, or any kind of formalised belief system.

It is however dependent on a belief that there is some meaning or purpose in existence. This is a belief that must be held, if it is held, without any proof, out of nothing. There is no way of coming to such a belief by way of reason or logic. 

I would say that a person who believed that life had a purpose had taken a religious stance, and might or might not go on to consider what that purpose could be. Someone who does not believe that life has any purpose is non-religious. Amongst the many definitions of religion, that is the one that I am choosing to use. 

"existentialist notions of reality & meaning."
Far too complicated for me, but, I think if you claimed that a stone was real, that would not be a religious statement - if you claimed that the stone meant something, then it would be, by my previous definition, of course.

----------


## Red-Headed

> "Ethics doesn't even have to be dependent on religion"
> 
> As I said, it's a question of definition. Ethics certainly does not have to be dependent on a belief in God, or any kind of formalised belief system.
> 
> It is however dependent on a belief that there is some meaning or purpose in existence. This is a belief that must be held, if it is held, without any proof, out of nothing. There is no way of coming to such a belief by way of reason or logic. 
> 
> I would say that a person who believed that life had a purpose had taken a religious stance, and might or might not go on to consider what that purpose could be. Someone who does not believe that life has any purpose is non-religious. Amongst the many definitions of religion, that is the one that I am choosing to use. 
> 
> "existentialist notions of reality & meaning."
> Far too complicated for me, but, I think if you claimed that a stone was real, that would not be a religious statement - if you claimed that the stone meant something, then it would be, by my previous definition, of course.


Hmmmm ... interesting, I'll have to think about this & get back to you. It's past midnight & I have to feed the mugwi ....

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> "Ethics doesn't even have to be dependent on religion"
> 
> As I said, it's a question of definition. Ethics certainly does not have to be dependent on a belief in God, or any kind of formalised belief system.
> 
> It is however dependent on a belief that there is some meaning or purpose in existence. This is a belief that must be held, if it is held, without any proof, out of nothing. There is no way of coming to such a belief by way of reason or logic. 
> 
> I would say that a person who believed that life had a purpose had taken a religious stance, and might or might not go on to consider what that purpose could be. Someone who does not believe that life has any purpose is non-religious. Amongst the many definitions of religion, that is the one that I am choosing to use. 
> 
> "existentialist notions of reality & meaning."
> Far too complicated for me, but, I think if you claimed that a stone was real, that would not be a religious statement - if you claimed that the stone meant something, then it would be, by my previous definition, of course.


That's not entirely true. Ethics can come from logic and reason. Morals can too. If someone steals from me, for example, I have to reorder a portion of my life to replace or do without the lost item. I can reason that it's time consuming for a victim of theft to process and remedy the theft. To me, empathy is not simply a belief system sprung from religious style fancy; it's an order to things, a way of having things run smoothly. It's the knowledge that actions have consequences, some of them negative. It doesn't hinge on feeling there is a higher meaning or specific purpose to life either. I, for one, see no purpose or point to life, yet I will act in my physical world according to physical cause and effect.

There is no mysticism in my atheism.  :Smile:

----------


## lawpark

> Believers often say that you need religion because life would be pointless otherwise. But how exactly does religion give meaning to life?


One way to think about it is by examing the phrase "the meaning of life".

I'd argue that on a purely formal basis, "meaning of X" has to refer to something that is not equal X, and that something also cannot be a part or subset of X.

So by "meaning of (your) life", it has to refer to something beyond (your) life - something like "the meaning of your life is to allow you to live", or "the meaning of your life is to let your tummy grow" do not make sense for the term "meaning" on a purely formal basis. 

Thus, the "meaning of (your) life" has to point to something else, typical solution is to refer to say "a community", "a nation", "a God", "humanity", etc. Now, you have to decide for yourself, if "the meaning of your life" has to refer to something that is NOT your life, is this really *meaningful* to you? Here, I put asterisks next to "meaning" to suggest that it is an existential thing - no longer about definitions.

----------


## G L Wilson

If God existed, we'd still have to act as if he didn't to be ethical.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"If someone steals from me, for example, I have to reorder a portion of my life to replace or do without the lost item."
To quote Sleepywitch, "So what?" Are you using that as an argument against theft? It is not, until you take the first non-logical, non-reasonable step of claiming that portions of your life have some meaning. All I have said is that I define that initial step as "religious."

"If God existed, we'd still have to act as if he didn't to be ethical."

If you mean that we'd have to act without fear of God's punishment or hope of God's favour, then I entirely agree with you.

----------


## G L Wilson

> "If God existed, we'd still have to act as if he didn't to be ethical."
> 
> If you mean that we'd have to act without fear of God's punishment or hope of God's favour, then I entirely agree with you.


To be ethical one must go against God.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> "If someone steals from me, for example, I have to reorder a portion of my life to replace or do without the lost item."
> To quote Sleepywitch, "So what?" Are you using that as an argument against theft? It is not, until you take the first non-logical, non-reasonable step of claiming that portions of your life have some meaning. All I have said is that I define that initial step as "religious."


What meaning do those portions of life have? By your reasoning, absolutely everything is religious.

----------


## Drkshadow03

In Judaism there really isn't a sharp divide between culture, religion, and ethnicity. Of course, there are examples that challenge this observation like say a black christian American converting to Judaism, in which case he wouldn't be ethnically Jewish, but this observation holds for the most part for most of the Jewish population. I would suggest culture itself is meaningful; it's a lens upon which we view the world around us, even directs how we decide which values should matter the most to us. I think equating religion with God belief is a mistake of atheists. I can remove God from the equation and Judaism would still be meaningful to me. Even the Bible would still be extremely meaningful to me.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

This is a serious question. No sarcasm intended. Cat means feline, do you think that means it's religious?




> In Judaism there really isn't a sharp divide between culture, religion, and ethnicity. Of course, there are examples that challenge this observation like say a black christian American converting to Judaism, in which case he wouldn't be ethnically Jewish, but this observation holds for the most part for most of the Jewish population. I would suggest culture itself is meaningful; it's a lens upon which we view the world around us, even directs how we decide which values should matter the most to us. I think equating religion with God belief is a mistake of atheists. I can remove God from the equation and Judaism would still be meaningful to me. Even the Bible would still be extremely meaningful to me.


I think issues are getting mixed up here. There wasn't a question of trivial things having meaning in day to day life. The big question is, why are we here? What is the point of all of this? What is the "meaning" of life as a whole? It was first stated that religious people want to convince non-believers that life has NO meaning without belief in God. So, just a reminder, the question is: What does religion suggest the singular meaning of life is? To serve God is not enough of an answer. If religion has the market cornered on life's true meaning, what is it?

I think it would be an easy question to answer if Christians knew the answer.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I think issues are getting mixed up here. There wasn't a question of trivial things having meaning in day to day life. The big question is, why are we here? What is the point of all of this? What is the "meaning" of life as a whole? It was first stated that religious people want to convince non-believers that life has NO meaning without belief in God. So, just a reminder, the question is: What does religion suggest the singular meaning of life is? To serve God is not enough of an answer. If religion has the market cornered on life's true meaning, what is it?
> 
> I think it would be an easy question to answer if Christians knew the answer.


It's not whether Christians know the answer, it is whether those who don't see things spiritually would understand the answer.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

So non-spiritual people cannot understand what spiritual people don't understand. In other words, no one understands the meaning of life. Religious people simply have a desire to believe they know a secret answer. Non-religious people have a desire to be content with not knowing. Both longings are understandable, but there's never a need to tell someone their life is empty without god.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> So non-spiritual people cannot understand what spiritual people don't understand. In other words, no one understands the meaning of life. Religious people simply have a desire to believe they know a secret answer. Non-religious people have a desire to be content with not knowing. Both longings are understandable, but there's never a need to tell someone their life is empty without god.


I don't believe that is anything close to what I said. It seems that you don't have a desire to understand. That is why you'd miss the answer if it were given. If you were open to try to understand someone's beliefs instead of wanting to be critical, then you may at least understand that someone can find meaning in something that you don't.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"What meaning do those portions of life have? By your reasoning, absolutely everything is religious."

I was not reasoning. I was simply making a definition, from which it might be possible to answer the original question without going too far in a circle, or at least to go in a circle with Sleepywitch on the inside.
By my definition, everything based on the assumption that life has a value is starting from a religious base. Religion is not necessarily some mumbo-jumbo or some fancy, or some screen against the fear of death. It is simply an assertion, in the absence of any particular reason or proof, that there is an "order of things" and that order is preferable to chaos.

Those who accept such views may leave the nature of such order as unknowable or irrelevant, and elect to "act in their physical world according to physical cause and effect." As Alexander Pope wisely said, "The proper study of mankind is Man."

(end of my answer to Varenne Rodin; the following is an attempt to answer the OP)

Others reckon that orders of things do not occur by accident, but only by design. Absence of proof about origins or purpose of the order of things is not relevant, because the actual existence of orders of things is not provable either. So, people go questing to know what it might all mean, without even the means to know what it all is. Mostly they project a sort of super-human view out into the universe - which, given our place within our world, might be mistaken but it is not laughable. 
In any case, trying to answer the original question, the great religions attempt to give meaning to life by answering the questions "What are the source and purpose of life itself and what is our place in it?" The monotheistic religions postulate a single designer of the universe and seek to read from that universe the intentions of its creator. Furthering the creator's is the definition of good, and hindering those intentions is the definition of bad.

Obviously, and I do not think the argument is circular, since the concept of the creator arises out of the perceived "orders of things," order and harmony are seen the creator's attributes or intentions. Promoting these is therefore good, in general. 
Unfortunately, humans do not have the long-term vision of the creator, and tend to think that a social order that has lasted more than (insert your own figure according to your own age) is the "order of things." So the great religions have a tendency to veer to conservatism and, at times, repression. 
At other times, of course, they are great forces for change and advancement. Scientific study has largely been promoted, for example, in the quest for knowledge of the universe and its meaning. Social advance has often been driven by the moral implications of religious belief.

But it's late, so the summary is - the universe appears to be more purposeful than chaotic; the great religions seek to identify the purpose; the function of all sentient beings of good will is to promote the purpose where possible.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> But it's late, so the summary is - the universe appears to be more purposeful than chaotic; the great religions seek to identify the purpose; the function of all sentient beings of good will is to promote the purpose where possible.


Science seeks to identify, religion says it already has.




> I don't believe that is anything close to what I said. It seems that you don't have a desire to understand. That is why you'd miss the answer if it were given. If you were open to try to understand someone's beliefs instead of wanting to be critical, then you may at least understand that someone can find meaning in something that you don't.


The answers that I'm "missing" are based on esoteric beliefs, and that's why I don't have any interest in attempting to force my analytical brain to feel faith in the unproven. As for understanding beliefs.... I was a Christian when I was a child. I fully and completely believed the information given me by church and family. I had "faith." So please stop attempting to insult my ability to understand very basic ideas.

I also understand that a deity is a possible thing, just not in the exact ways men have concocted. If I can accept the possibility that there is a deity, and you have such a hard time with me saying that there's been no evidence of one, which of us lacks understanding?

"That is why you'd miss the answer if it were given." No answer has been given. You obviously think me very stupid, to suggest I wouldn't understand an answer if given a legitimate one. If you think I'm such a lackwit, you really should refrain from wasting the effort to address me. I'm sorry your god didn't grant you the wisdom to convince others of your argument. Bye.

----------


## Stanislaw

> To be ethical one must go against God.


 :Hand:  please give me some more details, I'm curios if you have a compelling argument... or just finished watching V for Vendetta  :Biggrin: . 




> The answers that I'm "missing" are based on esoteric beliefs, and that's why I don't have any interest in attempting to force my analytical brain to feel faith in the unproven. As for understanding beliefs.... I was a Christian when I was a child. I fully and completely believed the information given me by church and family. I had "faith." So please stop attempting to insult my ability to understand very basic ideas.
> 
> I also understand that a deity is a possible thing, just not in the exact ways men have concocted. If I can accept the possibility that there is a deity, and you have such a hard time with me saying that there's been no evidence of one, which of us lacks understanding?


I think you have struck the proverbial nail square on the head. A true scientist should be agnostic... anything is theoretically possible/impossible until a proof is found.

The meaning of life is something that we just don't quite understand yet. Most likely due to our limited technology, we don't have the capacity to test any particular theory fully and develop a law. Personally I think the question is a red hearing. A puzzle that can never be fully solved but is perfect for distracting from important issues/problems. (think Capt. Kirk and his fuzzy computer logic and his asking the poor poor machine to solve for Pi)

To me the religious concept that we exist to worship a deity is as absurd as the secular concept that humanity exists for no reason whatsoever. 

Perhaps the question is more important than the answer.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Thank you, Stanislaw.  :Smile:

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> "That is why you'd miss the answer if it were given." No answer has been given. You obviously think me very stupid, to suggest I wouldn't understand an answer if given a legitimate one. If you think I'm such a lackwit, you really should refrain from wasting the effort to address me. I'm sorry your god didn't grant you the wisdom to convince others of your argument. Bye.


It's not that I think that you're a nitwit. I personally find comfort in knowing that God is there to talk to. I believe in the spiritual life that follows this one, and that it will be far better than what is here. From the things that you have said before, I think that you don't believe in those things, and therefore you'd like that they were foolishness. If that is the case, then you won't understand.

----------


## Paulclem

The Buddhist view of the meaning of a being's life is the ending of suffering and the gaining of permanent happiness.

The religion teaches a skillful response to the world in order that the being may become calmer, more compassionate and happier. 

Often this is counter to our initial impulses - responding with anger etc and postulates the view that a mind can be trained away from negative resonses to positive ones. 

The benefit of this is that the person benefits by not creating further negative karma, but creating positive Karma which improves their conditions in the short and/or long run.

Ending suffering and attaining a permanent happiness for all = the meaning of life

----------


## mtpspur

I dislike using the word religion because it implies more going on then there is in my life. At this stage in my life I consider myself a very flawed Christian (my sins are great and of no merit here) who happens to believe the Bible can give meaning to life and direction for it. I try to have an attitude that I do NOT know it all nor can I but I can know enough - for now. At its simplest form religion should reveal something of the Creator to the creature for the blessing of the creature and the Glory of the creator. My faith is a simple one--but can consume a lifetime plumbing the depths. This entry was very hard to write in order to be concise and respectful of those that do not perhaps share an appreciation for the Bible that I do.

----------


## Red-Headed

> "existentialist notions of reality & meaning."
> Far too complicated for me, but, I think if you claimed that a stone was real, that would not be a religious statement - if you claimed that the stone meant something, then it would be, by my previous definition, of course.


Now I've fed the mugwi ...

Paley's Watch analogy aside, I agree with Varenne about ethics not really needing any religious basis & can be based on logic. That reminds me ... I'm going to have to re-read Kant.

----------


## WyattGwyon

> "Ethics doesn't even have to be dependent on religion"
> 
> As I said, it's a question of definition. Ethics certainly does not have to be dependent on a belief in God, or any kind of formalised belief system.
> 
> It is however dependent on a belief that there is some meaning or purpose in existence. This is a belief that must be held, if it is held, without any proof, out of nothing. There is no way of coming to such a belief by way of reason or logic. 
> 
> I would say that a person who believed that life had a purpose had taken a religious stance, and might or might not go on to consider what that purpose could be.


Meaning isn't something one begs and tweezes from the fabric of existence by the supplications of logic. It is something one imposes upon it! It is not some found object of passive belief. It is something one creates for oneself. That act of creation is the primary life function of a sentient being. You must create meaning yourself or someone else's meanings will devour you. Religion is the wolf in the forest waiting for those unarmed with their own.

----------


## cl154576

> By my definition, everything based on the assumption that life has a value is starting from a religious base. Religion is not necessarily some mumbo-jumbo or some fancy, or some screen against the fear of death. It is simply an assertion, in the absence of any particular reason or proof, that there is an "order of things" and that order is preferable to chaos.


Isn't that rather extreme? Most of the people I know are moral, upright atheists who find meaning in serving the community, appreciating small moments, taking care of their family, etc. One needn't believe in a deity to think it is good to be kind to others. For each person, regardless of all else, one's life has whatever meaning one gives it.
I am quite involved in some musical communities, and many of the musicians I know are very spiritual despite being atheist. One does not need to believe in God to feel joy at discovering beauty.

As for the original question  I think people were afraid. They wanted some explanation for the natural phenomena they saw (e.g. volcanoes, thunder) and they did not understand enough about science to come up with more realistic conclusions. Also, it can be frightening to some to imagine that mankind could be an accident, entirely alone in the world, with no special purpose or meaning _as a species_. I think that's where some of the difference comes in. Religious people are able to give more of a purpose to mankind in general, while non-religious people give meaning to their own lives.

I understand how some people take comfort in the idea of a benevolent protector and Creator. I simply don't believe because I don't wish to. I prefer to feel a connection between myself and the dead geniuses whose work I encounter, rather than a supernatural being who has power over me.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Isn't that rather extreme? Most of the people I know are moral, upright atheists who find meaning in serving the community, appreciating small moments, taking care of their family, etc. One needn't believe in a deity to think it is good to be kind to others. For each person, regardless of all else, one's life has whatever meaning one gives it.
> I am quite involved in some musical communities, and many of the musicians I know are very spiritual despite being atheist. One does not need to believe in God to feel joy at discovering beauty.
> 
> As for the original question – I think people were afraid. They wanted some explanation for the natural phenomena they saw (e.g. volcanoes, thunder) and they did not understand enough about science to come up with more realistic conclusions. Also, it can be frightening to some to imagine that mankind could be an accident, entirely alone in the world, with no special purpose or meaning _as a species_. I think that's where some of the difference comes in. Religious people are able to give more of a purpose to mankind in general, while non-religious people give meaning to their own lives.
> 
> I understand how some people take comfort in the idea of a benevolent protector and Creator. I simply don't believe because I don't wish to. I prefer to feel a connection between myself and the dead geniuses whose work I encounter, rather than a supernatural being who has power over me.


The big guy in the sky is a powerful enemy, cl154576, be watchful of your thoughts. We're all human, cl154576, it's just that some are more humane than others. (If I was religious, I could put you down right now like a cold turkey.) Analysis must come before free expression. It sounds like a contradiction and spontaneity is not to be dismissed, but a thought before speaking is better than a slap with a wet fish any day.

----------


## Paulclem

> Isn't that rather extreme? Most of the people I know are moral, upright atheists who find meaning in serving the community, appreciating small moments, taking care of their family, etc. One needn't believe in a deity to think it is good to be kind to others. For each person, regardless of all else, one's life has whatever meaning one gives it.
> I am quite involved in some musical communities, and many of the musicians I know are very spiritual despite being atheist. One does not need to believe in God to feel joy at discovering beauty.
> 
> As for the original question  I think people were afraid. They wanted some explanation for the natural phenomena they saw (e.g. volcanoes, thunder) and they did not understand enough about science to come up with more realistic conclusions. Also, it can be frightening to some to imagine that mankind could be an accident, entirely alone in the world, with no special purpose or meaning _as a species_. I think that's where some of the difference comes in. Religious people are able to give more of a purpose to mankind in general, while non-religious people give meaning to their own lives.
> 
> I understand how some people take comfort in the idea of a benevolent protector and Creator. I simply don't believe because I don't wish to. I prefer to feel a connection between myself and the dead geniuses whose work I encounter, rather than a supernatural being who has power over me.


There is an assumption in your post of a kind of self preserving logic - that man in the past has formulated these ideas in response to perfectly natural phenomena. What is missing is the inner, subjective spiritual experiences that inform many people on a personal level. These can be counter intuitive. 

These experiences - when verbalised - suffer in the modern view because there's no proof that a prson has them. Nevertheless, they do inform add meaning to lives and propel people onto religious paths. 

By the way - I'm not criticising you specifically, but I'm using your post to illustrate a point i think is often missing from analyses of religious thought and motivation.  :Biggrin:

----------


## G L Wilson

> There is an assumption in your post of a kind of self preserving logic - that man in the past has formulated these ideas in response to perfectly natural phenomena. What is missing is the inner, subjective spiritual experiences that inform many people on a personal level. These can be counter intuitive. 
> 
> These experiences - when verbalised - suffer in the modern view because there's no proof that a prson has them. Nevertheless, they do inform add meaning to lives and propel people onto religious paths. 
> 
> By the way - I'm not criticising you specifically, but I'm using your post to illustrate a point i think is often missing from analyses of religious thought and motivation.


See what I mean, cl154576, the wet sponge of spirituality is being thrown at you - you are suppose to suck on it. It could be worse, it could be codswallop.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> I think issues are getting mixed up here. There wasn't a question of trivial things having meaning in day to day life. The big question is, why are we here? What is the point of all of this? What is the "meaning" of life as a whole? It was first stated that religious people want to convince non-believers that life has NO meaning without belief in God. So, just a reminder, the question is: What does religion suggest the singular meaning of life is? To serve God is not enough of an answer. If religion has the market cornered on life's true meaning, what is it?


Thanks for that Varenne, you've rephrased my question much more concisely than I could have done.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> I believe in the spiritual life that follows this one, and that it will be far better than what is here.


hum.. that's one of the things I don't get about religion. Whoever said this life was so bad? I mean, I can understand that life was bad for lots of people in the past in a material sense (and still is for lots of people in the developing world). But what is so bad about our lives as people in the developed world that we need to wish for a better afterlife? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be antagonistic or saying that we don't have any problems at all. I'd genuinely like to know what kind of things in life religious people judge as bad.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Thanks for that Varenne, you've rephrased my question much more concisely than I could have done.


Thank you, SleepyWitch, for posing such a thought provoking question. I thought you did so quite clearly. After the conversation went 'round the track a few times and derailed, it was of interest to me to reset. I'm genuinely interested to know if a religious person will ever concede that perhaps religion is not superior to everything non-religious. It seems the religious harangue the non-believer for want of equal measure and respect, yet they hold their theologies at lofty heights that brook no kindness to differing views.

It is understood that Christians believe there is an unseen deity and an afterlife paradise, but why does that give cause to demean that which is secular?

----------


## Paulclem

> See what I mean, cl154576, the wet sponge of spirituality is being thrown at you - you are suppose to suck on it. It could be worse, it could be codswallop.


 :FRlol: 

Of course what makes or causes these spiritual experiences is a moot point. I think someone with a scientific worldview will dismiss it as not relevant and perhaps being part of some wish fulfilment. Someone growing up in a religious comunity - whose culture is heavily influenced by it - may interpret it in one way. others who wish to break from that tradition may interpret it in terms of an alternative religion. Other seekers perhaps look to new age theories. 

Our response is interesting. Does it depend upon some shared community view, is it actually an external religious influence, or does it arise solely within the individual based upon their developed delusions? What does the multitude of different religious traditions mean for what are often similar "spiritual" experiences? 

But they can't be dismissed, as they inspire peope different ways, and often to great works. Whatever your view of them, the reality is that there are an awful lot of religious people who use them to add meaning to their lives. Some of them may be intolerant, but will you meet intolerance with intolerance? I think open mindedness is a healthy attitude, because who could claim to know the whole truth of it yet?

----------


## G L Wilson

> Of course what makes or causes these spiritual experiences is a moot point. I think someone with a scientific worldview will dismiss it as not relevant and perhaps being part of some wish fulfilment. Someone growing up in a religious comunity - whose culture is heavily influenced by it - may interpret it in one way. others who wish to break from that tradition may interpret it in terms of an alternative religion. Other seekers perhaps look to new age theories. 
> 
> Our response is interesting. Does it depend upon some shared community view, is it actually an external religious influence, or does it arise solely within the individual based upon their developed delusions? What does the multitude of different religious traditions mean for what are often similar "spiritual" experiences? 
> 
> But they can't be dismissed, as they inspire peope different ways, and often to great works. Whatever your view of them, the reality is that there are an awful lot of religious people who use them to add meaning to their lives. Some of them may be intolerant, but will you meet intolerance with intolerance? I think open mindedness is a healthy attitude, because who could claim to know the whole truth of it yet?


To me, spirituality is mental illness. I have no problem with it if it does no harm.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Often times, I feel as though I'm being asked to coddle adults like they are children. The problem arises when the "children" are a danger to others.

Like keeping Santa Claus alive in the minds of children, maybe that's fine, but if the children start saying Santa hates gays and they will burn in hell, I don't think it's disrespectful of anyone's beliefs to point out the sickness there. If Santa says atheist people have empty lives, I'm fine with correcting that notion. It doesn't make me intolerant to have a sensible, non-violent approach to intolerance.

----------


## Paulclem

I agree with that Varenne. I have no truck with that kind of thinking. I really can't see any spirituality in it - just a cultural dogma, and you get that in lots of religions. 

What you also get is impressive people, except of course they don't go around broadcasting their views but often just get on with being the good people they are. the danger is that due to the extreme actions and thoughts and proclamations of a few, that we throw out the idea of spirituality altogether. I'm looking at it in a wider sense - certainly not just Christianity, which I often feel is the case on this forum. 

We don't get a lot of extremism shoved down our throats here in the UK. There are extreme sects, but they don't have any voice in any wide sense. Is it different in the US? We see idiotic pastors burning books and causing hurt at funerals etc on the news in the US, but not too much. We certainly don't have those religious channels. 

To me, spirituality is mental illness. I have no problem with it if it does no harm.

What spirituality do you have experience of?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I agree with that Varenne. I have no truck with that kind of thinking. I really can't see any spirituality in it - just a cultural dogma, and you get that in lots of religions. 
> 
> What you also get is impressive people, except of course they don't go around broadcasting their views but often just get on with being the good people they are. the danger is that due to the extreme actions and thoughts and proclamations of a few, that we throw out the idea of spirituality altogether. I'm looking at it in a wider sense - certainly not just Christianity, which I often feel is the case on this forum. 
> 
> We don't get a lot of extremism shoved down our throats here in the UK. There are extreme sects, but they don't have any voice in any wide sense. Is it different in the US? We see idiotic pastors burning books and causing hurt at funerals etc on the news in the US, but not too much. We certainly don't have those religious channels. 
> 
> To me, spirituality is mental illness. I have no problem with it if it does no harm.
> 
> What spirituality do you have experience of?


Thank you for your words, Paul. I agree with them. Things are much different here in the US, sadly. Those things you've seen on the news happen quite frequently. It's more than that though. There are very aggressive "super" churches here (think Walmart in church form). I'm not sure if these congregations are spiritual or not, but they are definitely very attached to casting judgments on others, and ridicule and shame. They don't seem like content people.

My son was beaten up by a group of Christian children at his school because they demanded to know if he went to church and he said no. My aunt accused me of trying to corrupt the family simply by declining to have my child baptized. I've been called a devil worshipper for my aspirations to be a scientist. I haven't even discussed my atheism with my friends and family much, but my community insists on "exposing interlopers." I have some decent Christian friends, but they still shake their heads at me in disgust because I refuse to join their crowd.

When I talk about religious groups here, I am generally talking about Christian extremists. I haven't wanted to single them out by saying that I have never been insulted or attacked by Buddhists, but it's true.

The majority of American Christians assert that the bible is literally true and backed up by physical evidence. They say evolution never happened. God is in every sentence of every conversation with these zealots. In every breath. It's accompanied by sneering tones. My aunt is looking for a house. She has gone on and on about her search on Facebook, begging for friends to pray harder so she can find the house of her dreams. Her friends say bizarre things in response like, "Truly, yours is a family FAVORED by GOD. He will find you your perfect house. It will be HIS house and WORTHY of HIS grandness!" Also, "May Jesus Christ strike down those who put in opposing offers, for you are blessed by the divine!" There is zero awareness that they don't have to speak that way. "Got my groceries today. The tomatoes weren't on sale, but what can you do? God is good! Love my life! Not afraid to preach his word!" It erupts out of nothing.

Some people just rant and rave nonsense. Speaking in "tongues." It's terrifying. It's disgusting. Christians are the majority. Secular people are repressed for not screaming God praise. Ask a lot of soldiers from my navy town why they signed up to go to Iraq, they'll tell you they did it to kill Muslims for God. Bumperstickers proclaim "Jesus and the American soldier are the only ones who ever died for YOU!" They see themselves as weapons in the hands of God. This is when "spirituality" is at its most dangerous, when people think they are actual puppets of deities, and that their lives are not their own.

----------


## cl154576

> My son was beaten up by a group of Christian children at his school because they demanded to know if he went to church and he said no. My aunt accused me of trying to corrupt the family simply by declining to have my child baptized. I've been called a devil worshipper for my aspirations to be a scientist. I haven't even discussed my atheism with my friends and family much, but my community insists on "exposing interlopers." I have some decent Christian friends, but they still shake their heads at me in disgust because I refuse to join their crowd.
> 
> When I talk about religious groups here, I am generally talking about Christian extremists. I haven't wanted to single them out by saying that I have never been insulted or attacked by Buddhists, but it's true.
> 
> The majority of American Christians assert that the bible is literally true and backed up by physical evidence. They say evolution never happened. God is in every sentence of every conversation with these zealots. In every breath. It's accompanied by sneering tones. My aunt is looking for a house. She has gone on and on about her search on Facebook, begging for friends to pray harder so she can find the house of her dreams. Her friends say bizarre things in response like, "Truly, yours is a family FAVORED by GOD. He will find you your perfect house. It will be HIS house and WORTHY of HIS grandness!" Also, "May Jesus Christ strike down those who put in opposing offers, for you are blessed by the divine!" There is zero awareness that they don't have to speak that way. "Got my groceries today. The tomatoes weren't on sale, but what can you do? God is good! Love my life! Not afraid to preach his word!" It erupts out of nothing.
> 
> Some people just rant and rave nonsense. Speaking in "tongues." It's terrifying. It's disgusting. Christians are the majority. Secular people are repressed for not screaming God praise. Ask a lot of soldiers from my navy town why they signed up to go to Iraq, they'll tell you they did it to kill Muslims for God. Bumperstickers proclaim "Jesus and the American soldier are the only ones who ever died for YOU!" They see themselves as weapons in the hands of God. This is when "spirituality" is at its most dangerous, when people think they are actual puppets of deities, and that their lives are not their own.


I agree with you that fanaticism can be very dangerous, and I feel sorry that your situation is like that. Is most of America really like that? It scares me ... The area I live in is full of atheist immigrants who use churches as places for socializing.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I agree with you that fanaticism can be very dangerous, and I feel sorry that your situation is like that. Is most of America really like that? It scares me ... The area I live in is full of atheist immigrants who use churches as places for socializing.


It varies from city to city, but even in places where it isn't rampant, we're forced to "tolerate" the extremists. I once sent my son to a "summer day camp water park" that was hosted by a local church (on the recommendation of a friend). Once he was there, they put him into army clothes and had him wear "I love Jesus" dog tags. They told him he was a soldier in the army of god and that the kids at the camp would be training for "spiritual warfare." Needless to say, he did not go back a second time. Some normal people attended that church, even atheists like you mentioned, but the church leaders here are bonkers. It's brainwashing on a very large scale.

I live in Southern California, near the Mexican border. I would say the ratio here is 75/25 extremists to sane people. You go to downtown areas or further north to Los Angeles, and people are more progressive. San Francisco seems to have the least amount of zealots in the state. I've heard that education is greatly valued in Seattle, and that keeps extremism low. New York is progressive, but it's got people of all different religions and cultures, so it's hard to pinpoint a general attitude in the area.

The bible belt seems to be expanding here, with almost all of the "southern" states hosting billboards blasting outrage over abortion and birth control in the name of Christ love, interspersed with signs reading "NUDE GIRLS! NEXT EXIT!" I can't laugh enough about the bumperstickers. "I love Jesus and my GUN!"

Still, America is not as scary as I'm making it seem. "These people are cowards, Donnie," as Walter from The Big Lebowski would say. A lot of people have been frightened by the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and the increasingly shocking "news" the media puts forth. They want to feel safe. They want to think their relatives are waiting for them and they want to fight anyone who thinks otherwise. Some of it has been the result of funding cuts to schools across the nation. I still think people have room to change and grow. I'm optimistic that this ultra religious trend will fade here like so many other American fads. There are brilliant people here too. Scientists, writers, filmmakers, artists. I hope the world won't give up on us just yet.

----------


## Paulclem

I didn't realise it was like that so much in the US. We get an impression of the culture here, but that's the one put forward by the media and is perhaps focused on progressive cities like NY. It explains a lot.

----------


## Vonny

I'm at heart, Christian, so my comments aren't a criticism of Christianity.

Idaho is extremely religious. The false "Christianity" we have now is a fervor that the talk radio pundits have stirred up and figured out how to capitalize on, by "empowering" the common, ignorant individual and making ignorance a virtue. We face problems now that require some very intelligent/educated people to figure out, and the ignorant should be told to sit down and shut up, but talk radio pundits and the Fox News crowd put the issues into nutshells, and the ignorant feel very proud that they understand and can make the decisions, just as they understand that it doesn't matter how much we destroy the earth, because God will give us a new one.

I have no hope that anything will get better because as our educational system and economy continues to erode, people will reach for simple, pat answers and comfort.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I'm at heart, Christian, so my comments aren't a criticism of Christianity.
> 
> Idaho is extremely religious. The false "Christianity" we have now is a fervor that the talk radio pundits have stirred up and figured out how to capitalize on, by "empowering" the common, ignorant individual and making ignorance a virtue. We face problems now that require some very intelligent/educated people to figure out, and the ignorant should be told to sit down and shut up, but talk radio pundits and the Fox News crowd put the issues into nutshells, and the ignorant feel very proud that they understand and can make the decisions, just as they understand that it doesn't matter how much we destroy the earth, because God will give us a new one.
> 
> I have no hope that anything will get better because as our educational system and economy continues to erode, people will reach for simple, pat answers and comfort.


Wow, Vonny. That's it exactly. Somehow this country turned ignorance into virtue. This is why we should not have been quite as "tolerant" as so many people demand. I'm not sure how to fix it either. So where to move to? The UK? France? Canada?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Mandatory IQ tests for voting rights would probably decrease my dislike of modern Christians.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Mandatory IQ tests for voting rights would probably decrease my dislike of modern Christians.


I'm thinking that your dislike for Christians has more to do with your own perspective and bias than their voting record. This is just another statement supporting Totalitarianism. Seems like you are wanting to silence the opposing viewpoints.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I'm thinking that your dislike for Christians has more to do with your own perspective and bias than their voting record. This is just another statement supporting Totalitarianism. Seems like you are wanting to silence the opposing viewpoints.


You know what? No. That is false. I have never taken issue with someone's personal faith. My only grievance is that large blocks of church voters have forced poor judgment on our governing system. As I have said many times, this is a hindrance to progress. Perhaps some people have never met the kinds of Christians who don't care about the earth because they "believe there's a better life after this one," but those Christians do exist, and they have the loudest, most overbearing voice in America right now. I have to live as someone who values this planet, this life. 

Thanks for the personal attack. I'm sure you'll get the thread closed now. Bummer.

If you were paying attention, you would perhaps notice that I have conceded something here. I LIKE Christians when they do not fall into the category of the extremely under-educated. Terrence Malick, for example, is one of my favorite directors. He's a brilliant Christian man and a far cry from the Jerry Springer group, of which you seem unacquainted. It's not totalitarianism to suggest that voters push themselves to be educated enough to qualify to have a vote. We force people to take driving tests before granting them driving licenses. Should we stop doing that? We have managers at companies go through all sorts of tests before granting them the power to make the big decisions. Should entry level people be skipped ahead to an executive level to avoid hurting their feelings?

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> You know what? No. That is false. I have never taken issue with someone's personal faith. My only grievance is that large blocks of church voters have forced poor judgment on our governing system. As I have said many times, this is a hindrance to progress. Perhaps some people have never met the kinds of Christians who don't care about the earth because they "believe there's a better life after this one," but those Christians do exist, and they have the loudest, most overbearing voice in America right now. I have to live as someone who values this planet, this life. 
> 
> Thanks for the personal attack. I'm sure you'll get the thread closed now. Bummer.
> 
> If you were paying attention, you would perhaps notice that I have conceded something here. I LIKE Christians when they do not fall into the category of the extremely under-educated. Terrence Malick, for example, is one of my favorite directors. He's a brilliant Christian man and a far cry from the Jerry Springer group, of which you seem unacquainted. It's not totalitarianism to suggest that voters push themselves to be educated enough to qualify to have a vote. We force people to take driving tests before granting them driving licenses. Should we stop doing that? We have managers at companies go through all sorts of tests before granting them the power to make the big decisions. Should entry level people be skipped ahead to an executive level to avoid hurting their feelings?


I'm sorry....where was the personal attack? I did not attack you at all. I don't agree with your perspective at all though. I could say the same thing about those who have the atheistic lean who put there faith in the own interpretive science. The theory of evolution is still just a theory...and I wish that it was not presented as fact. Evolution seems as far fetched to me as creation seems to atheists, and the evidence doesn't support it. I wish that the education system was not controlled by the liberal bias. I wish that our legislation wasn't so left leaning. Maybe we need both sides to keep the balance...instead of wishing that we could silence the one side. You think that the "religious" people need educated, well, maybe the atheists need just as much education (but not by an atheist institution like most of our universities are...)

----------


## Paulclem

To me, spirituality is mental illness. I have no problem with it if it does no harm.

What spirituality do you have experience of?

So are you going to respond? Your post implies that religious people/ spiritual people are mentally ill, and it is an interesting point.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> We don't get a lot of extremism shoved down our throats here in the UK. There are extreme sects, but they don't have any voice in any wide sense. Is it different in the US? We see idiotic pastors burning books and causing hurt at funerals etc on the news in the US, but not too much. We certainly don't have those religious channels.


Paul, in actuality, there isn't much extremism. I think that the problem is that due to an unscrupulous media, these religious nutcases get a stage. There are idiots who desire to burn Korans, and the media broadcasts it. There are morons who start protesting funerals, and the media broadcasts it. There are murderous hatemongers who kill abortion doctors, and the media broadcasts it.

In reality, the 98% (if not higher) of the Christians condemn these idiots as well. Should we judge all atheists based on the actions of the boys who shot all those people in the Columbine school because they were atheists?

----------


## cl154576

> So are you going to respond? Your post implies that religious people/ spiritual people are mentally ill, and it is an interesting point.


It doesn't seem she was implying that, just using it as a comparison.

----------


## G L Wilson

> To me, spirituality is mental illness. I have no problem with it if it does no harm.
> 
> What spirituality do you have experience of?
> 
> So are you going to respond? Your post implies that religious people/ spiritual people are mentally ill, and it is an interesting point.


I have experienced psychosis and must admit that spirituality looks and sounds the same. All I'm saying is, clinical psychosis must be a nightmare to diagnose.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Evolution is not a theory. It clearly happened and is still happening. Whether someone created the original cells that organisms evolved from, I have no idea. Science has no idea. It doesn't claim to. We can't know what happened before anything in our universe existed. I can't believe people are STILL denying that adaptations occur. Do you understand at all why some viruses spontaneously become stronger than they ever were before? Have you ever seen a chameleon? Do we all look like cavemen to you? Do you also deny that dinosaurs existed? QED. Thanks, JDC.

----------


## Paulclem

> Paul, in actuality, there isn't much extremism. I think that the problem is that due to an unscrupulous media, these religious nutcases get a stage. There are idiots who desire to burn Korans, and the media broadcasts it. There are morons who start protesting funerals, and the media broadcasts it. There are murderous hatemongers who kill abortion doctors, and the media broadcasts it.
> 
> In reality, the 98% (if not higher) of the Christians condemn these idiots as well. Should we judge all atheists based on the actions of the boys who shot all those people in the Columbine school because they were atheists?


I know what you mean about unscrupulous media. Varenne has a different take on it though. Is it a case of different areas and emphases? I haven't visited the US, but i understand it's size and diversity.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Evolution is not a theory. It clearly happened and is still happening. Whether someone created the original cells that organisms evolved from, I have no idea. Science has no idea. It doesn't claim to. We can't know what happened before anything in our universe existed. I can't believe people are STILL denying that adaptations occur. Do you understand at all why some viruses spontaneously become stronger than they ever were before? Have you ever seen a chameleon? Do we all look like cavemen to you? Do you also deny that dinosaurs existed? QED. Thanks, JDC.


No, in fact, the dinosaurs are recorded in the Bible (long before our society discovered their existence. We have NEVER observed General Evolution, therefore we have no real evidence (even though some have loosely interpreted some things as evidence). However, there are some things referred to as Special Evolution that even the religious believe to be the case. But these cases of Special Evolution cannot explain adaptations that would change one "kind" of species into another "kind" of species. Therefore the theory (which really only ranks as a hypothesis) is not fact.

QED?

----------


## Paulclem

> I have experienced psychosis and must admit that spirituality looks and sounds the same. All I'm saying is, clinical psychosis must be a nightmare to diagnose.


I'm sorry if you felt you had to say that GL. I wasn't trying to pry. 

I understand the connection between mental illness and religion. We used to run meditation classes, and it did attract quite a few people with mental health issues. Most of them were trying to find a solution to a problem, but we couldn't help them. They needed medical assistance. 

My wife also has experience of working with people with mental health issues in the National Health Service. She says that those she saw with serious problems often had religious fixations. It's very sad. 

Having said that, the two are not the same. You can clearly make a distinction. That's the ones with serious, debilitating conditions. Obviously those who recover are somewhat different. I think the statistic in the UK is 1 in 4. 

We often, as Buddhists, used to wonder at the karmic conditions that could result in a person pursuing religion but with a complete inability to engage with it. Imagine having what you percieve to be something you consider will help you in your hand but being unable to use it - in this case calming meditation? It's a bit like Tantalus. If there was hell on earth - and from what I've seen of some unfortunate people, you don't need to travel too far to find it - then that must be one of the frustrating hells. Just speculation though, and only referring to those with lifelong mental problems.

----------


## G L Wilson

Hell is in the mind and there is no such thing as heaven - that is how I would describe clinical psychosis.

----------


## Delta40

I don't see why the education system can't cover the theory of evolution AND the theory of creation. As I have said before, depsite our beliefs, the history of humankind has always had God(s) and puzzled endlessly about science. Why hide it?

----------


## Paulclem

> Hell is in the mind and there is no such thing as heaven - that is how I would describe clinical psychosis.


I wouldn't dispute the hell in the mind idea. Awful, from what I've seen. I would also say there are physical hellish conditions that humans can endure too. 

Heavens - (Buddhist view not Christian etc) - these are recorded in the stories of the Buddha. they are not an ultimate, final heaven, but a place where very fortunate beings go and live as Gods. They have to leave eventually though, which makes them part of our wheel of suffering life. 

There are heavenly conditions on earth, but these are much more elusive and transient don't you think.  :FRlol:  Typical.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Creation is a junk theory. There is no physical evidence to support it. Evolution has tons of bones and remains layered in the surface of the earth over millions of years, with obvious genetic links and subtle changes to the forms. No one has physical evidence of a creator. It stands to reason that if a deity created the physical world, he should be able to interact with it physically, but he has left zero physical evidence of himself. The stories of him speaking to people sound like lunacy and con jobs. It would be nothing but sick brainwashing to teach it to kids in schools. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with religious theory anyway. It's much more like the theory of gravity, or the theory of the sun. The theory of tides. The theory that the moon influences the tides. These are all standing theories because they are testable, they are backed up by physical evidence, and they cannot be disproven. Creation theory can't be tested, and there is zero evidence. It cannot be evaluated by science, or experienced in the physical world, so it's like the theory of unicorns. Why not teach the children that unicorns and dragons made babies, then turned those babies into humans with magic? Let's throw everything at these poor children and watch them go crazy!

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I don't see why the education system can't cover the theory of evolution AND the theory of creation. As I have said before, depsite our beliefs, the history of humankind has always had God(s) and puzzled endlessly about science. Why hide it?


Because Creationism isn't a science. Religion does have a place in the education curriculum in history classes, however.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I agree that religion is part of history. Jesus Christ was touched on in the history books at my elementary school. More information than what was given, for most historical figures, would eventually need to be taught in comprehensive elective college courses and, in fact, it is.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Because Creationism isn't a science. Religion does have a place in the education curriculum in history classes, however.


I'm sorry, but evolution isn't science either.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I'm sorry, but evolution isn't science either.


If you say so.

----------


## Delta40

> Because Creationism isn't a science. Religion does have a place in the education curriculum in history classes, however.


Based on history there is a theory of creation. If you want to split hairs on whether or not it comes under the science curriculum or history curriculum then go ahead. My point is that the theory of creation is NOT taught at schools, including history. Anything containing the R word is lightly touched upon at best. I'm referring mainly to government schools of course.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Based on history there is a theory of creation. If you want to split hairs on whether or not it comes under the science curriculum or history curriculum then go ahead. My point is that the theory of creation is NOT taught at schools, including history. Anything containing the R word is lightly touched upon at best. I'm referring mainly to government schools of course.


I was agreeing with you. I don't think the theory of creation should be taught in public schools at all, except perhaps in a literature class on mythology or Creation Narratives or whatever. 

During history classes, however, when you read a chapter about the Ancient Near East and Ancient Israel, there should be discussion about Jews and Jewish belief. When you read the chapter on Arabia and the founding of Islam, it should include discussion about the basic beliefs of Islam. Ditto Christianity during the Roman Era. Etc.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> If you say so.


You show me where we have observed ANYTHING evolving into something different. Because that is what science is about.

----------


## YesNo

> I agree with you that fanaticism can be very dangerous, and I feel sorry that your situation is like that. *Is most of America really like that?* It scares me ... The area I live in is full of atheist immigrants who use churches as places for socializing.


From my experience, it is not.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> You show me where we have observed ANYTHING evolving into something different. Because that is what science is about.


If you're talking about in real time, tadpoles turn into frogs, sperm turn into humans, caterpillars change into butterflies. This is silly, though. Check out all of the physical defense mechanisms organisms developed after a migration to a new environment. Things like that take time, but there is still clear and obvious evidence. Science is not simply about things changing into other things, I don't know where you get that. You need a refresher on scientific method, if you ever learned about it. This type of ignorance is the "extremism" that has the rational world concerned.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Based on history there is a theory of creation. If you want to split hairs on whether or not it comes under the science curriculum or history curriculum then go ahead. My point is that the theory of creation is NOT taught at schools, including history. Anything containing the R word is lightly touched upon at best. I'm referring mainly to government schools of course.


This is the stuff that scares me, that people want children to be subjected to courses instructing them into mass delusion. That you would want this fairy tale preached in schools is just abhorrent. I still have the freedom to not have that done to my family. When will Christians stop trying to force atheists to join the cult? You can believe in your invisible God, don't try to take others with you if they don't want to go. Don't hate people so much for considering other options and seeking more plausible truths. Please?

----------


## G L Wilson

What meaning do religious people get from life? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> If you're talking about in real time, tadpoles turn into frogs, sperm turn into humans, caterpillars change into butterflies. This is silly, though. Check out all of the physical defense mechanisms organisms developed after a migration to a new environment. Things like that take time, but there is still clear and obvious evidence. Science is not simply about things changing into other things, I don't know where you get that. You need a refresher on scientific method, if you ever learned about it. This type of ignorance is the "extremism" that has the rational world concerned.


I'm sorry....that is not evolution...that is reproductive creation.
No...I mean show me where something like a monkey turns into a man. That education that you think others need, maybe be applicable to yourself as well. (and no....that is not a personal attack)

----------


## G L Wilson

> I'm sorry....that is not evolution...that is reproductive creation.
> No...I mean show me where something like a monkey turns into a man. That education that you think others need, maybe be applicable to yourself as well. (and no....that is not a personal attack)


What you are looking for is magic, not science. Science doesn't deal in miracles.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I'm sorry....that is not evolution...that is reproductive creation.
> No...I mean show me where something like a monkey turns into a man. That education that you think others need, maybe be applicable to yourself as well. (and no....that is not a personal attack)


You might as well have said to me, "That's not evolution...that's flibba dabba jib sloth purple meeting sprocket is face." I'm trying not to laugh about this, because you're obviously sensitive and I don't wish to hurt your feelings. This is a very strange conversation. I wish you good luck on your war against atheism, science, and education. I hope smacky dacky suntan rabbit toaster chill wrangler comes through for you, and that you can party together in hopscotch monkey bean level 37 for time repulse of not back for. Peace.

----------


## WyattGwyon

> I could say the same thing about those who have the atheistic lean who put there faith in the own interpretive science. The theory of evolution is still just a theory...and I wish that it was not presented as fact. Evolution seems as far fetched to me as creation seems to atheists, and the evidence doesn't support it. I wish that the education system was not controlled by the liberal bias. I wish that our legislation wasn't so left leaning. Maybe we need both sides to keep the balance...instead of wishing that we could silence the one side. You think that the "religious" people need educated, well, maybe the atheists need just as much education (but not by an atheist institution like most of our universities are...)


Bienvenu,
Like most who make statements like "the theory of evolution is still just a theory," you seem to be unfamiliar with the definition of the word theory as it is used in scientific contexts. Theory and fact are not antonyms. The fact that something is called a theory has no relation to its truth value. For example, the heliocentric theory of planetary motions is confirmed by unequivocal established fact, and it has been so for centuries. A theory is just a comprehensive explanation of a phenomenon or set of related phenomena. Even after everything the theory predicts is proved true, as in the case of the heliocentric theory, the set of propositions it comprises is still called a theory and will always be so designated. That the theory of evolution has been confirmed as a veridical explanation for countless related natural phenomena and historical processes is an established fact accepted by all reputable life scientists. Only basic scientific illiteracy can allow one to reject it out of hand.

----------


## WyattGwyon

> Based on history there is a theory of creation. If you want to split hairs on whether or not it comes under the science curriculum or history curriculum then go ahead. My point is that the theory of creation is NOT taught at schools, including history. Anything containing the R word is lightly touched upon at best. I'm referring mainly to government schools of course.


This is not hair-splitting. A theory whose propositions are by their nature not falsifiable does not belong in the science classroom. (Falsifiable means that they are susceptible of confirmation or disconfirmation by means of observation.) As any bright eight-year old will tell you, the theory of creation is not an explanation of anything, since it just substitutes another question (How did God come to be?) for the question of how the universe came to be.

----------


## WyattGwyon

> You show me where we have observed ANYTHING evolving into something different. Because that is what science is about.


We have observed the evolution of countless modern species from their historical predecessors through the fossil record and DNA studies. This information is widely available to anyone who actually wants to expand their knowledge.

----------


## WyattGwyon

> I'm sorry....that is not evolution...that is reproductive creation.
> No...I mean show me where something like a monkey turns into a man. That education that you think others need, maybe be applicable to yourself as well. (and no....that is not a personal attack)


Monkeys don't turn into men. If you mean this in anything close to a literalistic sense, I would recommend some remedial science education. Homo sapiens, monkeys, and other primates are all sub-branches of one particular branch of the evolutionary tree. Humans share common ancestors with monkeys and closer (more recent) ones with apes. When speciation occurs it doesn't mean that one species ceases to exist and another replaces it. Usually it is a matter of two closely related species or populations diverging over time.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> We have observed the evolution of countless modern species from their historical predecessors through the fossil record and DNA studies. This information is widely available to anyone who actually wants to expand their knowledge.


I've seen the so-called evidence. It is flawed and interpretive. The actual fossils are mere fragments, and the conclusions are sketchy based on circular reasoning. Evolutionary scientists draw their conclusions based on their assumptions. If there is some real evidence, then please post it...don't just say..oh, it's out there somewhere.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Bienvenu,
> Even after everything the theory predicts is proved true,


Ah...there's the rub...everything that the theory 'predicts' hasn't been proven to be true. That is a bold faced lie.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I'm so glad Wyatt joined this discussion.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I'm so glad Wyatt joined this discussion.


Yes...Wyatt has offered up more unsubstantiated rhetoric. It's the same old song and dance. It has drawn us away from discussion of how religion gives meaning to life. Another way to be intolerant to some people's beliefs. Why should it matter if ONE person finds meaning due to religion, even though you may not.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I've seen the so-called evidence. It is flawed and interpretive. The actual fossils are mere fragments, and the conclusions are sketchy based on circular reasoning. Evolutionary scientists draw their conclusions based on their assumptions. If there is some real evidence, then please post it...don't just say..oh, it's out there somewhere.


This kind of thinking further demonstrates the fanaticism taking place in America, as I said. Christians will argue that extremism isn't happening, or that it's only in isolated cases, because they have no awareness of how openly hostile or obstinate they are when confronted with information that contradicts that the events in the bible are factual accounts. 

Until we can somehow transport fossils and mass volumes of texts through single message board posts, Bien, you'll have to get your extensive education from an accredited learning institution off site. You don't want one, though. You seem to be fighting for the sake of fighting. I can never explain to you how disturbing it is.

----------


## WyattGwyon

> Ah...there's the rub...everything that the theory 'predicts' hasn't been proven to be true. That is a bold faced lie.


Are you actually arguing that the basic predictions of the heliocentric theory have not been proved? That is what this phrase related to in my message.

As for actual evidence: Your request is silly. It is like asking someone to provide evidence that the earth revolves around the sun. Just go and get any one of many basic texts on evolutionary biology and _read it_. Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote a good one. The basic science has been firmly established for well over a century! A great read that is fascinating and for general audiences is _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_ by Daniel Dennett. This is from a philosophy-of-science perspective in case you are interested in the state of current thinking on evolutionary theory from many perspectives.

----------


## WyattGwyon

> Yes...Wyatt has offered up more unsubstantiated rhetoric. It's the same old song and dance. It has drawn us away from discussion of how religion gives meaning to life. Another way to be intolerant to some people's beliefs. Why should it matter if ONE person finds meaning due to religion, even though you may not.


Your unfamiliarity with the scientific definition of the term "theory" is not unsubstantiated rhetoric. This was the principal point of my post. 

If you don't think evolutionary theory is relevant to the thread then don't bring it up. I was just responding to what you had written. It was a short correction of your terminology and could just have been graciously accepted so we could move on.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Yes...Wyatt has offered up more unsubstantiated rhetoric. It's the same old song and dance. It has drawn us away from discussion of how religion gives meaning to life. Another way to be intolerant to some people's beliefs. Why should it matter if ONE person finds meaning due to religion, even though you may not.


You never discussed how religion gives meaning to life. I believe that you want to believe it does. Your arguments seem to be more directed at convincing yourself than demonstrating how or why Christianity offers anything good or reasonable. What exactly is your intent? Do you feel repressed? Do you think your faith is threatened by science? Is your faith not adaptable to newer information than the stuff dreamt up by an ancient telephone game? Genuinely curious.

----------


## WyattGwyon

> Yes...Wyatt has offered up more unsubstantiated rhetoric. It's the same old song and dance. It has drawn us away from discussion of how religion gives meaning to life. Another way to be intolerant to some people's beliefs. Why should it matter if ONE person finds meaning due to religion, even though you may not.


I am not sure why your finding the meaning of life in religion requires you to be hostile to scientific thinking. Many people find a comfortable accommodation between scientific and religious viewpoints. Does evolutionary theory contradict some fundamental tenet of your religious beliefs? Many have accepted evolutionary processes as the means by which God orchestrates his creation of life. For an omniscient and omnipotent God, willing the Big Bang to happen as it did would entail the intentional creation of mankind.

----------


## SleepyWitch

*I hate to interrupt your discussion about evolution, but could someone answer my question?*





> hum.. that's one of the things I don't get about religion. Whoever said this life was so bad? I mean, I can understand that life was bad for lots of people in the past in a material sense (and still is for lots of people in the developing world). But what is so bad about our lives as people in the developed world that we need to wish for a better afterlife? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be antagonistic or saying that we don't have any problems at all. I'd genuinely like to know what kind of things in life religious people judge as bad.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> *I hate to interrupt your discussion about evolution, but could someone answer my question?*


I was wondering too. I'm starting to think waging war on reason is the Christian meaning of life.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> *I hate to interrupt your discussion about evolution, but could someone answer my question?*


Sleepywitch, while I recognize you're responding directly to Bien's comments, I would like to point out that not all religions are focused on the afterlife or think this life is bad. Judaism is a classic example of a religion that values this life more than it puts any emphasis on an afterlife.

----------


## Paulclem

I think we are in a very good position in many countries today. The development of pain relief, for example, has had a great effect upon the quality of many people's lives. In the UK, the NHS is free, so most maladies can be reasonably dealt with. People are living longer. I think the latest is that 1/4 of the people born today in the UK will live to 100 or more. Work in the home and in industry is not a crushing fatigue. We have free education, and oportunities that virtually none of our ancestors ever had. I'm from the working class/ underclass, but I have been to university and become a professional. The food is generally good, and hygiene standards mean it doesn't kill us as often as it probably did. We have holidays and leisure to pursue our interests and broaden our minds.

You're right, Sleepywitch. Life is not so bad for us - now. 

Here's the Buddhist take on it though. Unfortunately, all the good things will come to pass. We will live longer, but instead of dying of the diseases our ancestors did, we will succumb to cancer, heart failure etc etc. Our longevity may merely mean that we prolong the unproductive and reliant period of our lives. Our wealth could change at any time. Who knows where the credit problems will leave us? With no jobs and mass demonstrations/ civil unrest etc etc. No-one knows if war will erupt again in Europe. will unemploymet and racial tensions from economic migration cause it? I hope not, but nothing is ultimately certain.Today's stability could turn into tomorrow's chaos. 

On a personal level, it can be easy to make assumptions about our stability. But are partners trustworthy? is our health stable. Are our family members ok? Lots of bad things can happen, and can affect our happiness, personal stability and mental health.

So what does Buddhism offer to us in a situation that could go either way?

It offers the opportunity to study the mind and gain a certain control over it. It has methods for reducing anger - which might erupt in the face of negative conditions - it puts problems into perspective by offering methods to calm the mind and reflect skillfully upon the things life throws at us. 

Of course this is on a mundane and personal level. The Buddha's path also offers full Elightenment. This is because the world we live in is seen as being full of suffering. This is not to say that we can't enjoy the good conditions we have now, but the rather radical view is that any current happiness merely increases our attachment, our clinging to certain conditions which causes us great pain. For example our next door neighbour is becoming increasingly incapable of looking after himself after living in the same house for fifty years or so. ow will he feel about having to go and live in a nursing home? The greatest attachment is, of course life ended by our death. We don't think of it when we're young, but in fact the reality of it - the utter finality of it, it is said, doesn't really hit a person until close to the end. All the reflections such as - what did I do with my life, has it been well lived, why didn't I do this that etc etc will come back to haunt us if in fact we haven't lived well. 

So the path offers a preparation for death too - death is a reality which may mean we miss our next meal if we are really unlucky. 

But more than this, the path offers a way to live a good - even skillful life that will carry a being on into a positive future rebirth as a human rather than an animal or worse. This is the aspect of Buddhism that posits Karma and reincarnation at its core. It teaches that actually feathering your own nest at the expense of others - due to karma - leads to more suffering. it teaches that compassion and empathy actually pay, and that our more positive aspects are not only good for us as an individual, but for society. 

I hope you don't think I'm preaching, but this is the rather inadequate explanation of the Buddhist view. A way of coping with inevitable suffering and ultimately escaping it.

----------


## G L Wilson

The religious do not value life, the religious value eternity.

----------


## Paulclem

> The religious do not value life, the religious value eternity.


Are you referring to the Christian groups mentioned earlier? It really has no meaning in the context of eastern religions.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Are you referring to the Christian groups mentioned earlier? It really has no meaning in the context of eastern religions.


Very little of what G L Wilson says has meaning outside of the context of his own head, but anyway, like I already noted it doesn't really much make sense in relationship to Judaism either. It mostly speaks to Christianity and Islam, I would think. And even then, I don't think the statement is true. I know plenty of Christians and Muslims who have a zest for life and their families and whatnot.

----------


## Paulclem

Yes - I do too.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I just don't want to be despised by a large group of people. In the churches I went to growing up (more than ten), the major mission was to convert non-believers, to save them from eternal damnation. When people learn that I don't want to be converted, the reaction is sadness or anger. I don't want to feel that directed at me. I don't want it directed at others. I hope there will be a shift in my country toward love and acceptance.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I just don't want to be despised by a large group of people. In the churches I went to growing up (more than ten), the major mission was to convert non-believers, to save them from eternal damnation. When people learn that I don't want to be converted, the reaction is sadness or anger. I don't want to feel that directed at me. I don't want it directed at others. I hope there will be a shift in my country toward love and acceptance.


I can understand that. I have never pushed others to believe my views, but I would like people to respect my views. I do defend my own beliefs though.

It seems that we both want the same thing. I want to be liked and accepted, but when people imply that if I believe in God and creation then I must be unintelligent or crazy, it seems that they are doing to me exactly what you don't want to be done to you.

Does that make sense?

----------


## G L Wilson

Generally speaking, all religions dismiss life as corrupt and without value but it is really religion that is corrupt and without value.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Generally speaking, all religions dismiss life as corrupt and without value but it is really religion that is corrupt and without value.


This statement is totally untrue.

----------


## G L Wilson

> This statement is totally untrue.


That is your belief, not mine.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I just don't want to be despised by a large group of people.


I would think that is what most people want, religious or otherwise.




> This statement is totally untrue.


Don't bother. He is just repeating the same comments that were already challenged and discredited by subsequent comments and hoping if he repeats himself multiples time it will somehow become true. His comment is a textbook Strawman. He is making a claim about ALL religions (in general), despite three people from three different religions in this thread saying that they don't see the world like that. Like I said earlier, "Very little of what G L Wilson says has meaning outside of the context of his own head." This continues to prove the rule.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I can understand that. I have never pushed others to believe my views, but I would like people to respect my views. I do defend my own beliefs though.
> 
> It seems that we both want the same thing. I want to be liked and accepted, but when people imply that if I believe in God and creation then I must be unintelligent or crazy, it seems that they are doing to me exactly what you don't want to be done to you.
> 
> Does that make sense?


I agree, but I can't say I'll ever support theism being taught to secular kids in public elementary schools, or religion in general becoming too much a part of government. That being said, it comes into question why I can't or won't just abandon my education and philosophies and embrace Christianity as the ONE true answer to life's problems. My answers are not well received.

I think at this point I know where you stand, and you know where I stand, so we can reach a peaceful accord. For that reason, I am glad we have had this discussion. Unfortunately, my family and friends will never feel the empathy that you and I have managed to feel. Baby steps to progress, as they say.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I agree, but I can't say I'll ever support theism being taught to secular kids in public elementary schools, or religion in general becoming too much a part of government. That being said, it comes into question why I can't or won't just abandon my education and philosophies and embrace Christianity as the ONE true answer to life's problems. My answers are not well received.
> 
> I think at this point I know where you stand, and you know where I stand, so we can reach a peaceful accord. For that reason, I am glad we have had this discussion. Unfortunately, my family and friends will never feel the empathy that you and I have managed to feel. Baby steps to progress, as they say.


What exactly are we moving towards, peace and understanding? Give me a break! There is no peace with them, they only understand war.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> What exactly are we moving towards, peace and understanding? Give me a break! There is no peace with them, they only understand war.


G L, at some point the argument becomes a waste of energy. If atheists ever start their own country, I'll be right there. America doesn't work for me. I need to surround myself with like-minded people. At this point, I have nothing more to contribute to the conversation here. I still appreciate the poetry and creative works of the opponents of my philosophies, so in the interest of continuing to enjoy these forums, I'm exiting on a happy nice note. Peace is not the same as complacency, do not imagine my principles have changed.  :Smile:

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I agree, but I can't say I'll ever support theism being taught to secular kids in public elementary schools, or religion in general becoming too much a part of government. That being said, it comes into question why I can't or won't just abandon my education and philosophies and embrace Christianity as the ONE true answer to life's problems. My answers are not well received.
> 
> I think at this point I know where you stand, and you know where I stand, so we can reach a peaceful accord. For that reason, I am glad we have had this discussion. Unfortunately, my family and friends will never feel the empathy that you and I have managed to feel. Baby steps to progress, as they say.


I would actually agree with NOT teaching theism in the school. The problem would quickly become, Which form of theism to teach? I don't see a problem with a class that presents the world religions, and while Christianity should be a part of that, I would not want it to have any more weight. However, I don't think that we should be teaching that evolution is a fact either. Just because there are some who believe it is a fact, there are some of us that believe that creation is a fact. I also agree that we should not implement religion into the government, but to what degree would you take that? Should prayer be generally banned even though there is a local group where 98% of the individuals are Christian and want a prayer? There are Christians who wish to worship in a manner that is different than how I prefer to worship, but when it occurs in a public setting, I respectfully tolerate their ways. But it seems that by banning any aspect of religion, mention of God, or considerations as such, that the atheist individuals get their preference. 

Concerning legislation however, one should consider that there can't be a complete absolution against religion. When does atheism become a religion of it's own? Most atheist strongly deny that it can be, but I disagree. There aren't any easy answers, but if we work together there can be workable compromises.

----------


## G L Wilson

> G L, at some point the argument becomes a waste of energy. If atheists ever start their own country, I'll be right there. America doesn't work for me. I need to surround myself with like-minded people. At this point, I have nothing more to contribute to the conversation here. I still appreciate the poetry and creative works of the opponents of my philosophies, so in the interest of continuing to enjoy these forums, I'm exiting on a happy nice note. Peace is not the same as complacency, do not imagine my principles have changed.


Peace be with you, Varenne.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> ...........
> But more than this, the path offers a way to live a good - even skillful life that will carry a being on into a positive future rebirth as a human rather than an animal or worse. This is the aspect of Buddhism that posits Karma and reincarnation at its core. It teaches that actually feathering your own nest at the expense of others - due to karma - leads to more suffering. it teaches that compassion and empathy actually pay, and that our more positive aspects are not only good for us as an individual, but for society. 
> 
> I hope you don't think I'm preaching, but this is the rather inadequate explanation of the Buddhist view. A way of coping with inevitable suffering and ultimately escaping it.


Don't worry, you're not preaching. I think some aspects of Buddhism are compatible with Stoicism, which I have been following for a while. Stoics don't believe in reincarnation or life after death, but they basically say that good and evil only refer to your own moral character and not to things outside yourself. So things like poverty, ill health, enslavement etc, which are generally considered as bad by most people, are actually not evil, because they don't change who you are (unless you let them). Stoicism teaches us not to fret about things that are beyond our control anyway and only try to change things inside ourselves. Because they don't believe in life after death, you should live everyday in such a way that if you were to die suddenly, you're soul would be pure. As for misfortunes and death, they teach us to abstract from ourselves and not be unduly surprised or feel hard done by when things happen to us that can happen to anyone. E.g. everybody dies eventually, so why should you or I be an exception. Also, Marcus Aurelius says that human history is just a serious of repetitions and even if we were to live for thousands of years, we wouldn't miss anything new. Epictetus says that everyone has to die and it won't get any better by bawling about it. Basically, if you see death as an evil and you then wail about it you're adding another evil to it by making yourself miserable. 
That's what I don't like about the Christian and similar religions: they tell us that certain things are evil just so that they can provide comfort for a problem that we wouldn't even have without them. If we stopped judging these things as evil, we wouldn't need comforting and might actually get down to more practical things and make a difference in this life rather than waiting for God to sort everything out for us.

----------


## Paulclem

> Don't worry, you're not preaching. I think some aspects of Buddhism are compatible with Stoicism, which I have been following for a while. Stoics don't believe in reincarnation or life after death, but they basically say that good and evil only refer to your own moral character and not to things outside yourself. So things like poverty, ill health, enslavement etc, which are generally considered as bad by most people, are actually not evil, because they don't change who you are (unless you let them). Stoicism teaches us not to fret about things that are beyond our control anyway and only try to change things inside ourselves. Because they don't believe in life after death, you should live everyday in such a way that if you were to die suddenly, you're soul would be pure. As for misfortunes and death, they teach us to abstract from ourselves and not be unduly surprised or feel hard done by when things happen to us that can happen to anyone. E.g. everybody dies eventually, so why should you or I be an exception. Also, Marcus Aurelius says that human history is just a serious of repetitions and even if we were to live for thousands of years, we wouldn't miss anything new. Epictetus says that everyone has to die and it won't get any better by bawling about it. Basically, if you see death as an evil and you then wail about it you're adding another evil to it by making yourself miserable. 
> That's what I don't like about the Christian and similar religions: they tell us that certain things are evil just so that they can provide comfort for a problem that we wouldn't even have without them. If we stopped judging these things as evil, we wouldn't need comforting and might actually get down to more practical things and make a difference in this life rather than waiting for God to sort everything out for us.


Yes there are some similarities, though there are many differences reincarnation and its partner Karma being 2 very important ones. 

There is also an extensive system of training the mind in order to increase virtuous thoughts and train youself out of negative thoughts and therefore actions. the reason for this is due to Karma - creating positive rather than negative karma. It also demonstrates that Buddhisma is not deterministic - as stoicism is- people can change themelves for the better - there's no excuse in genetics or some solid state psychology or some pre-determined divine wish. It's all down to the individual. For me, that makes Buddhism a very social religion - it encourages community spirit, charity and taking responsibility.

Oh no - I'm on the soapbox again.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Yes there are some similarities, though there are many differences reincarnation and its partner Karma being 2 very important ones. 
> 
> There is also an extensive system of training the mind in order to increase virtuous thoughts and train youself out of negative thoughts and therefore actions. the reason for this is due to Karma - creating positive rather than negative karma. *It also demonstrates that Buddhisma is not deterministic - as stoicism is- people can change themelves for the better - there's no excuse in genetics or some solid state psychology or some pre-determined divine wish.* It's all down to the individual. For me, that makes Buddhism a very social religion - it encourages community spirit, charity and taking responsibility.
> 
> Oh no - I'm on the soapbox again.


In Stoicism only things that happen to you are predetermined, your moral development isn't. Also there is no excuse in genetics, because everyone is endowed by Nature with reason.

----------


## usman.khawar

> Believers often say that you need religion because life would be pointless otherwise. But how exactly does religion give meaning to life? Looking at the 'great' monotheistic religions (I don't know enough about the others) it seems that they mainly tell people _how_ to live their lives, i.e. they give them rules about family life, how to worship God etc. But that's not really what I would call 'meaning' or 'purpose'. E.g. the purpose of a pair of scissors is to cut things, i.e. an action outside the scissors themselves. We wouldn't normally say that the purpose of scissors is to have two blades and a handle with two holes for stickin your finers in and a screw in the middle for the blades to open etc (= rules for a good pair of scissors). Whereas rules for a 'religious' life do not refer to any purpose outside life itself... unless maybe you assume that sticking to those rules will make people happy, thus turning their life from a mere life into a happy one. But I don't remember the Bible etc. promising anyone happiness.
> So is it supposed to be the promise of a life after death that gives 'meaning' to this life?
> Other arguments seem kind of circular to me, e.g. 'The purpose of life is to please God.' So what?
> Anyway, I'd like to know why religious people think that religion gives meaning to their life and I'd like to hear some non-circular arguments.


you said bible etc. but if you read quran you will find a lot of arguments and promised not for after death but here in this world. bible is not like quran. Quran says like at many places there would be no fear and frustration who become the friend of Allah and not freind of devil. here in this world its the biggest present of Lord to give u a state of mind where there is no greif no fear and no frustration.
for me as i found Allah through religion islam gives meaning here and hereafter. but unfortunately, hardly i can see a true follower of islam, they have been divided in groups. and in quran allah dont accept them as muslims. i can say for sure i m not in any party or group within islam. if i followed my parents or my forefathers i couldnt get that sate of mind, i directly connected with allah and His prophet inside and get help from both from outside (qaran and sunnah). i m enjoying that state of mind ( well not fully as there are uncountable grades and i m beginner but i can compare my early life with this one which i adopt since hardly few years and there is an amazing difference). 
this state of mind is not only for individuall if a society apply the true essence of islam then it can enjoy as a whole. as there was back to 14 centuries. i cant explain everything here due to shortage of time. but again this state of mind is the greatest gift of God in this world, in which there is no greif no frustration no fear.

----------


## YesNo

> In Stoicism *only things that happen to you are predetermined*, your moral development isn't. Also there is no excuse in genetics, because everyone is endowed by Nature with reason.


Interesting. Who predetermines the things that happen to a person in Stoicism?

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Interesting. Who predetermines the things that happen to a person in Stoicism?


Fate/ the cosmos/ some pantheistic deity. The Stoics did believe in some sort of god(s) but it's not really a person/ superhuman being like in the Bible but something that is part of all of us and we are all part of. I suppose one can still be a Stoic and atheist at the same time if one decides to attribute the bad things that happen to one to chance or Nature or whatever.




> you said bible etc. but if you read quran you will find a lot of arguments and promised not for after death but here in this world. bible is not like quran. Quran says like at many places there would be no fear and frustration who become the friend of Allah and not freind of devil. here in this world its the biggest present of Lord to give u a state of mind where there is no greif no fear and no frustration.


That's very interesting. Thanks for the explanation, usman.

----------


## Scheherazade

*W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing such remarks will be removed without further notice.*

----------


## G L Wilson

Meaning is a reading, it registers or it does not.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I would actually agree with NOT teaching theism in the school. The problem would quickly become, Which form of theism to teach? I don't see a problem with a class that presents the world religions, and while Christianity should be a part of that, I would not want it to have any more weight. However, I don't think that we should be teaching that evolution is a fact either. Just because there are some who believe it is a fact, there are some of us that believe that creation is a fact. I also agree that we should not implement religion into the government, but to what degree would you take that? Should prayer be generally banned even though there is a local group where 98% of the individuals are Christian and want a prayer? There are Christians who wish to worship in a manner that is different than how I prefer to worship, but when it occurs in a public setting, I respectfully tolerate their ways. But it seems that by banning any aspect of religion, mention of God, or considerations as such, that the atheist individuals get their preference. 
> 
> Concerning legislation however, one should consider that there can't be a complete absolution against religion. When does atheism become a religion of it's own? Most atheist strongly deny that it can be, but I disagree. There aren't any easy answers, but if we work together there can be workable compromises.


God has spoken, and we must listen?!

----------


## Paulclem

> In Stoicism only things that happen to you are predetermined, your moral development isn't. Also there is no excuse in genetics, because everyone is endowed by Nature with reason.


I see. The system in Budhism is that having had countless lives - as animals, humans, Gods etc, then a vast store of positive and negative karma has developed for each being. The thinking is that we suffer because we make the conditions for suffering for ourselves by commiting selfish acts in the ignorent view that it will bestow happiness, whereas it actually promises the results of negative actions - more suffering.

Although we have this store, what actually arises depends upon what we nurture for ourselves in the long run - it's not an instant thing happening in this life, but over the next few lives. That's why death is seen as important - the nurturing of a positive mind at death in order to create the conditions for a positive future life. But to do that you must have trained yourself to be positive, to nurture compassion etc. It's not something that can be turned on and off. Leading a good life is good for you, as well as everyone else.

----------


## YesNo

> But to do that you must have trained yourself to be positive, to nurture compassion etc. It's not something that can be turned on and off. Leading a good life is good for you, as well as everyone else.


It makes sense that enlightened people not only benefit themselves but also those around them. I'd rather be around compassionate (enlightened) people than non-compassionate ones.

You mentioned that "you must have trained yourself to be positive". What sort of training do you go through? What comes to mind as possible training is what Eknath Easwaran mentions in his books (http://www.easwaran.org/), but that is more Hinduism than Buddhism. Essentially it is mantra recitation, meditation on memorized passages, spiritual reading, moving slowly, being part of a community, etc.

----------


## Paulclem

> It makes sense that enlightened people not only benefit themselves but also those around them. I'd rather be around compassionate (enlightened) people than non-compassionate ones.
> 
> You mentioned that "you must have trained yourself to be positive". What sort of training do you go through? What comes to mind as possible training is what Eknath Easwaran mentions in his books (http://www.easwaran.org/), but that is more Hinduism than Buddhism. Essentially it is mantra recitation, meditation on memorized passages, spiritual reading, moving slowly, being part of a community, etc.


It's meditation and practising the things learned in meditation. First it's getting to know how the mind works, and observing our motivations. You would focus on somthing that needs improving like anger, as an obvious one. It's not easy, but by meditating upon the harm anger causes and then the antidote - patience - you gradually become more aware of what happening to you when you become angry, and the idea is to snuff it out before it takes a hold. As we all know, anger is very difficult to control, but meditation gives you a little bit of reflective space to try to control it. 

This is just the beginning though. Once you've improved your self control, then you begin to try to improve you kindness and compassion. It seems a little artificial at first, but with practice, it becomes a more genuine experience. It's based upon the idea that the mind is not a static, unmoving thing, otherwise there would be no possibility of improving one's mind, but is constantly changing. My friend has been a longstanding practitioner, and I have noticed the change in him. 

This is merely the tip of the iceberg though. The way I've put it is very matter of fact, but there is a spiritual element to it as well - offerings, prayers and mantras as you said. I'm not very familiar with Hindu methods though.  :Biggrin: 

“When*ever I talk about using the mantram to trans*form fear and anger, peo*ple nod approv*ingly as long as I am talk*ing about fear. After all, no one wants to be fear*ful; no one wants to worry. But the nods of approval often stop when I ask peo*ple to repeat the mantram in moments of anger. ‘You’re not ask*ing us to repress anger?’ they ask. ‘Isn’t it bet*ter to express anger than to repress it?’ This is a legit*i*mate ques*tion, but it is based on the assump*tion that we have only two choices where anger is con*cerned: expres*sion or repres*sion. Either way, anger even*tu*ally works against us, under*min*ing our rela*tion*ships, our secu*rity, and even our health. But there is a third alter*na*tive: we can trans*form anger, through the rep*e*ti*tion of the mantram. Anger is power, and the mantram can trans*form this neg*a*tive power into its pos*i*tive coun*ter*part, which is compassion.”
 
The site is interesting YesNo. I copied this paragraph. Our approach is initially different, as I put above, but eventually you get to Tantra - (absolutely nothing to do with the common conception of Tantric sex) - where a negative emotion like anger is transformed into positive enrgy. This is taught in Mahayana Buddhism, but is an advanced practice which needs the close guidance of a qualified teacher. Mantras are part of it, but also other advanced practices.

I don't know what the asterisks are, but it still seems readable.

----------


## G L Wilson

> It's meditation and practising the things learned in meditation. First it's getting to know how the mind works, and observing our motivations. You would focus on somthing that needs improving like anger, as an obvious one. It's not easy, but by meditating upon the harm anger causes and then the antidote - patience - you gradually become more aware of what happening to you when you become angry, and the idea is to snuff it out before it takes a hold. As we all know, anger is very difficult to control, but meditation gives you a little bit of reflective space to try to control it. 
> 
> This is just the beginning though. Once you've improved your self control, then you begin to try to improve you kindness and compassion. It seems a little artificial at first, but with practice, it becomes a more genuine experience. It's based upon the idea that the mind is not a static, unmoving thing, otherwise there would be no possibility of improving one's mind, but is constantly changing. My friend has been a longstanding practitioner, and I have noticed the change in him. 
> 
> This is merely the tip of the iceberg though. The way I've put it is very matter of fact, but there is a spiritual element to it as well - offerings, prayers and mantras as you said. I'm not very familiar with Hindu methods though.


Dull your brain if you wish, it's not for me.

----------


## cl154576

> Leading a good life is good for you, as well as everyone else.


It seems so peaceful and good when you describe it ... I am a destructively passionate person. I don't want to be good; I think it would kill something inside me. In therapy I learn mindfulness which is adapted from Buddhism and it gives one an incredible sense of calm, but I always feel ashamed of myself when I'm calm or even not being destructive. I feel a compulsive need to be destructive. I like being hurt.

How do you endure good life, Paulclem?

----------


## YesNo

> The site is interesting YesNo. I copied this paragraph. Our approach is initially different, as I put above, but eventually you get to Tantra - (absolutely nothing to do with the common conception of Tantric sex) - where a negative emotion like anger is transformed into positive enrgy. This is taught in Mahayana Buddhism, but is an advanced practice which needs the close guidance of a qualified teacher. Mantras are part of it, but also other advanced practices.


I've been trying a mantra and it seems to work, but I don't really understand why because it is so easy to do. I suspect it is a lot like prayer for a Christian or Muslim. It makes me wonder about the power of language.

This does seem to relate to the original question of the thread which is HOW religion is supposed to give meaning to life. I suspect if one can reduce one's anger with these techniques that would allow more meaning into one's life, or allow one to see the meaning that is there.

----------


## Paulclem

> It seems so peaceful and good when you describe it ... I am a destructively passionate person. I don't want to be good; I think it would kill something inside me. In therapy I learn mindfulness which is adapted from Buddhism and it gives one an incredible sense of calm, but I always feel ashamed of myself when I'm calm or even not being destructive. I feel a compulsive need to be destructive. I like being hurt.
> 
> How do you endure good life, Paulclem?


cl154576 - when I was a young chap, I had a very confused view of life. I know I caused hurt, problems for others and myself, and I didn't respond to others' needs very well at all. That was due to the mixed messages I got from my upbringing and generally how young men can potentially be. It did nothing for my personal happiness, and I determined to improve that - without recourse to any religion in the beginning.

Before becoming a Buddhist I did worry that I might lose that part of me which I considered to be easy going and appreciative of the funny things in life. I had the misconception that I would have to become as I pictured others who had become Buddhist - a bit straight and serious. I didn't know that we can gain an element of self control over ourselves. I didn't know that there's no inevitable outcome for a path you choose. We consider our character or personality to be something set, or following a particular groove. It doesn't necessarily. What we have to do is filter out those things that are damaging in the short and long term for ourselves. It takes time, but there's no reason why a person should lose passion for life. It's a case of skillfully channelling our potential. As for negative actions - then you can't achieve everything at once. The first thing is to sort out your own personal unhappinesses and deal with those first. Only you can set your own priorities for that.  :Smile:  

As for enduring the good life - well we all have problems and difficulties, and the definition of the good life is very subjective. My life may very well seem completely boring to someone else, and I have to add that it's always a struggle to eep doing and saying the right things and I frequently fail. (It's the saying the wrong things that gets me.) that doesn't mean that some way off tomorrow that I won't be able to progress further.

GL - my experience of meditation - small though it is - is that it adds clarity to a person's view. Rather than someone else telling you what's up with you - if anything - it gives you the tools for self examination, and a mental space to consider things before responding.




> I've been trying a mantra and it seems to work, but I don't really understand why because it is so easy to do. I suspect it is a lot like prayer for a Christian or Muslim. It makes me wonder about the power of language.
> 
> This does seem to relate to the original question of the thread which is HOW religion is supposed to give meaning to life. I suspect if one can reduce one's anger with these techniques that would allow more meaning into one's life, or allow one to see the meaning that is there.


Yes - I reckon you're right. Anger is a totally selfish and very distorting view - and it doesn't have to be the full blown raging kind either. I suffer from the muttering and irritable dissatisfaction anger which can really affect your view and make up all kinds of destructive theories as to why so and so did this and how they've really got it in for me etc etc - or is that just me?  :Smile: 

I think reducing it allows one to begin to develop the more positive aspects of the human personality such as compassion etc. 

We used to discuss how mantras worked. It does stop all other mental rubbish going on like the low level anger i was just talking about. It's supposed to be a virtuous activity - which promotes a positive state of mind, and who knows if the multiple recitation of them by many many other people over time has some effect upon a person.

The ultimate Buddhsit view in my tradition is the freeing of all beings from suffering. To even begin to contribute towards that, you have to sort yourself out in a radical way - stop doing bad things, start doing good things and begin to develop those qualities that can affect others for the positive.It's a big ask, but a good one.  :Smile:

----------


## literary lew

It happens when the search for meaning comes to its logical conclusion---"To be or not to be." I think that in the face of annihilation, "death of the ego", we are hard-wired to conceptualize...in some shape, form, or fashion...deity. For in the black hole that we discover at that point in our journey, "need can blossom into all the compensations it requires", including religion. (Quote is from Marilyn Robinson in Housekeeping)

----------


## jocky

I am confused on this subject as I am on most things metaphysical. If someone offends me or attempts to hurt my family then I respond in what I believe to be a natural human response, or as some might term it self preservation. Now I know where that comes from and I suspect most of you do, however I find it difficult to come to terms with the consequences of my defence mechanisms and there is " the rub". 

Where does this idea or reality of conscience come from, is it a natural human emotion or something much deeper and ingrained in the human psyche? In other words are we driven by emotions we have inculcated by canons we have had drummed into us in childhood, be it religious or environmental, or is it something which is beyond explanation?

We all have to find our own answers but I feel that pouring over bronze age theological literature may not resolve anything.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I am confused on this subject as I am on most things metaphysical. If someone offends me or attempts to hurt my family then I respond in what I believe to be a natural human response, or as some might term it self preservation. Now I know where that comes from and I suspect most of you do, however I find it difficult to come to terms with the consequences of my defence mechanisms and there is " the rub". 
> 
> Where does this idea or reality of conscience come from, is it a natural human emotion or something much deeper and ingrained in the human psyche? In other words are we driven by emotions we have inculcated by canons we have had drummed into us in childhood, be it religious or environmental, or is it something which is beyond explanation?
> 
> We all have to find our own answers but I feel that pouring over bronze age theological literature may not resolve anything.


That is excellent, Mr. J.

----------


## YesNo

> Yes - I reckon you're right. Anger is a totally selfish and very distorting view - and it doesn't have to be the full blown raging kind either. *I suffer from the muttering and irritable dissatisfaction anger which can really affect your view and make up all kinds of destructive theories as to why so and so did this and how they've really got it in for me etc etc - or is that just me?* 
> 
> I think reducing it allows one to begin to develop the more positive aspects of the human personality such as compassion etc. 
> 
> We used to discuss how mantras worked. It does stop all other mental rubbish going on like the low level anger i was just talking about. It's supposed to be a virtuous activity - which promotes a positive state of mind, and *who knows if the multiple recitation of them by many many other people over time has some effect upon a person*.
> 
> The ultimate Buddhsit view in my tradition is the freeing of all beings from suffering. To even begin to contribute towards that, you have to sort yourself out in a radical way - stop doing bad things, start doing good things and begin to develop those qualities that can affect others for the positive.It's a big ask, but a good one.


I think you described the source of anger well, at least as I experience it. The mind gets full of theories justifying why others deserve a good punishment. When we're feeling good, these theories hide in the background, but when things go wrong they come up giving us an excuse to execute the punishment. It's a lack of compassion, or just a lack of imagination, since we can no longer see these people as they really are.

The idea that other people reciting a mantra can affect me is interesting, much like the idea of prayer by other people might have some affect upon me.




> Where does this idea or reality of conscience come from, is it a natural human emotion or something much deeper *and ingrained in the human psyche?* In other words are we driven by emotions we have inculcated by canons we have had drummed into us in childhood, be it religious or environmental, or is it something which is beyond explanation?
> 
> We all have to find our own answers but I feel that pouring over bronze age theological literature may not resolve anything.


I was recently reading a book by a neuroscientist studying near death experiences. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name at the moment, but it doesn't matter. Anyway, he claimed that the portion of the brain affecting REM sleep is the source of these experiences much like the eye is the source of our vision and the ear the source of our sight. I guess the ultimate question is whether this portion of the brain is deceiving us or giving us a clue to ultimate reality. 

Regarding all those bronze age documents, I don't think one has to restrict one's attention to a religious canon, especially if there is a portion of the brain that provides religious experience. One can use any texts that might help clarify the issues that come to mind. Since not everyone can see equally well, it doesn't hurt to read what people whose vision may have been better had to say about something in the past.

----------


## jocky

> Regarding all those bronze age documents, I don't think one has to restrict one's attention to a religious canon, especially if there is a portion of the brain that provides religious experience. One can use any texts that might help clarify the issues that come to mind. Since not everyone can see equally well, it doesn't hurt to read what people whose vision may have been better had to say about something in the past.


Clearly, I would never dismiss religious texts out of hand and admit they do have a certain historical worth, but I feel that is restricted to the values and mind set of that age rather than any supernatural truth. My point is that the value of these writings have had repercussions in the world that are, in my opinion, way beyond their merit as fact.

The problem is I think that there were no shrinks to sit the prophets on the couch and ask the obvious question, " Why do you believe this and did you have a difficult childhood ?" I bet Freud would have loved to have John of Patmos in his treatment room.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I'm not sure which near death experiences we're talking about. The light at the end of the tunnel story has been explained quite clearly. When someone goes blind rapidly, or when someone is dying, the occipital lobe (or visual cortex) of the brain begins to shut down. Sight information is transmitted to the brain through light/color cones. As sight dies, it does so in a shrinking conical pattern. The edges going black and contracting inward. This causes the last remaining light to appear much brighter, in contrast to the darkness. It looks like a light at the end of a tunnel.

The other NDEs I know of are tales of seeing loved ones in the light, or claims of floating over one's dying/dead body. I don't really know how it could be possible for a determination to be made that they were in REM state, unless the researchers conducting the study planned for someone to have a near death experience and monitored them in a controlled environment.

I could be missing some info here, not sure.

----------


## Hawkman

Originally Posted by jocky 

"Where does this idea or reality of conscience come from, is it a natural human emotion or something much deeper and ingrained in the human psyche? In other words are we driven by emotions we have inculcated by canons we have had drummed into us in childhood, be it religious or environmental, or is it something which is beyond explanation?

We all have to find our own answers but I feel that pouring over bronze age theological literature may not resolve anything."


Well, according to psychoanalytical theory the personality is divided into three parts, an unholy trinity lol. 

These are the id, the ego and the super ego. The id is the basic level, which is the unconscious mess of primitive urges and instincts for the gratification of basic desires, like food, sex and the avoidance of pain. The ego is the part of the personality which thinks and is self-aware. It is the seat of self-confidence. The super-ego regulates the ego and is effectively the conscience which criticizes the ego for gratifying those base urges from the id. Supposedly it is the conflict between the super-ego and the ego which is the cause of psychological problems.

I suppose, theoretically, the knowledge of the difference between right and wrong has to be learned through teaching. Who teaches? Generally it is imposed through a controlling mechanism, either secular law or religion.

So what are religion and law? They are mechanisms to control the behaviour of essentially selfish people when they live in large groups or societies. In large groups of people there is a natural hierarchy. The strong rise to the top. There are different areas of strength though. Physical and Mental. This pattern has been repeated down through the ages and is easily illustrated by the conflict between medieval Kings and the Church. The kings martial prowess and control through random acts of violence - and the church which controlled learning (through random acts of violence) and tried to tell the kings what to do. Calculating intelligence can control a bully, but youve got problems if the bully is also smart! See Henry VIII. He simply made himself head of the church. Smart move, eh?

To say that there is a part of the brain which is dedicated to believing in a higher power, unquestionable authority or mysticism, has been explained through the parental model. The Big Beard in the Sky is the parent which wields absolute authority over the developing consciousness. How many times have you heard a parent say, Ill be watching you!. Here is the birth of the idea of God. A person grows up with the belief that someone is always looking over their shoulder and will exact retribution for misdemeanours. Or at least they used to. In this country a parent is no longer allowed to discipline their child because it is regarded as child abuse. Consequently we now have generations growing up who lack the development of the concept of retribution for transgressions in their super-ego. Even the legal system has been ham-strung by rightsist legislation, so even if a transgressor is caught in young adulthood, he knows that there is no real consequence to his actions. We have allowed ourselves to think the common sense out of our society.

Essentially though, Religion is an invention of man for the purpose of regulating the behaviour of others. So is psychology, which in a secular society has become the new religion. Some practitioners of psychology may be very good, just as some priests may be very good. Unfortunately not all are. Psychiatry is essentially reverse engineering personality problems. Its much easier to observe and record simple cause and effect. The psychiatrist is presented with an effect and seeks to determine the cause. He does so through dogmatic adherence to other peoples work. If the template says X is the result of Y minus Z then he bases his solution on this. If, however, X is also the product of A times B plus C, his solution will be wrong.

Both psychology and religion are wielded like blunt instruments, more often than not by people who dont really understand them (or have their own adgenda). Take a look at Scientologists.  :Biggrin:  However, their position is often inviolable in societies which elevate their practitioners into positions of power and status.

----------


## jocky

That reply is along the lines of what I have always felt but could not articulate. Thanks for the explanation Hawkman.

----------


## Paulclem

> I am confused on this subject as I am on most things metaphysical. If someone offends me or attempts to hurt my family then I respond in what I believe to be a natural human response, or as some might term it self preservation. Now I know where that comes from and I suspect most of you do, however I find it difficult to come to terms with the consequences of my defence mechanisms and there is " the rub". 
> 
> Where does this idea or reality of conscience come from, is it a natural human emotion or something much deeper and ingrained in the human psyche? In other words are we driven by emotions we have inculcated by canons we have had drummed into us in childhood, be it religious or environmental, or is it something which is beyond explanation?
> 
> We all have to find our own answers but I feel that pouring over bronze age theological literature may not resolve anything.


I think each situation has to be judged on its own, and it is difficult to come up with a standard response to every situation. 

In terms of defending yourself and family it's down to motivation, and the motivation is clear - defence against some threat to yourself or your family friends or stranger. No-one would condemn that, and it is different to a mind of anger which has a selfish motivation. It reminds me of what has been a recent debate - how much force can you use to protect against an intruder. the law says reasonable force, and morally it's got to be reasonable force - otherwise something else comes into play like revenge or vindictiveness - which is a selfish form of anger. 

In Buddhism, the mind is regarded as a collection of the senses - and one of the purposes of meditation is to examine and find out wat the nature of the mind is. By comparison - western views of the mind are rather simplistic. There are various levels of the mind, and on reflecting on the mind, it becomes apparent that the motivating aspect sits underneath the conscious mind. It is said that our drives and preferences are partly environmental - nurture, but that there is also an element of karma - or nature - within us.

----------


## YesNo

> Clearly, I would never dismiss religious texts out of hand and admit they do have a certain historical worth, but I feel that is restricted to the values and mind set of that age rather than any supernatural truth.* My point is that the value of these writings have had repercussions in the world that are, in my opinion, way beyond their merit as fact.*
> 
> The problem is I think that there were no shrinks to sit the prophets on the couch and ask the obvious question, " Why do you believe this and did you have a difficult childhood ?" I bet Freud would have loved to have *John of Patmos* in his treatment room.


Some of the canonical Judeo-Christo-Islamic texts I don't consider worth reading except for historical purposes. One of them is _Revelations_ or the _Apocalypse_ which is what I believe you are referring to with John of Patmos. The canonization of this text in Christianity is one of the reasons why I am not Christian, but saying that, I also consider Christianity superior to Atheism.

Also I find _Samuel_ and _Kings_ more interesting as historical rather than religious documents. There are other bronze age texts that might be worth considering. I don't want to tell you which ones because I don't want you to think I'm pushing you into a religious tradition. Also some of the atomic age texts that have not been canonized at all, I consider worth reading and equally valuable.




> I'm not sure which near death experiences we're talking about. The light at the end of the tunnel story has been explained quite clearly. When someone goes blind rapidly, or when someone is dying, the occipital lobe (or visual cortex) of the brain begins to shut down. Sight information is transmitted to the brain through light/color cones. As sight dies, it does so in a shrinking conical pattern. The edges going black and contracting inward. This causes the last remaining light to appear much brighter, in contrast to the darkness. It looks like a light at the end of a tunnel.
> 
> The other NDEs I know of are tales of seeing loved ones in the light, or claims of floating over one's dying/dead body. *I don't really know how it could be possible for a determination to be made that they were in REM state*, unless the researchers conducting the study planned for someone to have a near death experience and monitored them in a controlled environment.
> 
> I could be missing some info here, not sure.


I don't know either how the link was made to the REM state. Nor do I really know how scientists determined that the cosmic background radiation really came from the Big Bang or that the fossil records provide evidence for evolution. But until they tell me differently and they can convince each other of the change of theory, I tend to trust them.

Besides near-death experiences, which someone who resurrected experienced, there are also shared-death experiences which people close to the dying person experienced and out-of-body experiences. 

Linking these kinds of experiences to a place in the brain doesn't prove that these experiences are anything more than illusions, nor does it prove that they are not illusions. What I find interesting about the research is that it does hint that other species with similar brain structure may have similar experiences.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

So, what about all the cases of people who have died and come back, and didn't have any experience? Wouldn't that be just as valid for arguing that there is no after-life as using the ones who have had near-death experiences for arguing that there is?

----------


## Paulclem

> So what are religion and law? They are mechanisms to control the behaviour of essentially selfish people when they live in large groups or societies. In large groups of people there is a natural hierarchy. The strong rise to the top. There are different areas of strength though. Physical and Mental. This pattern has been repeated down through the ages and is easily illustrated by the conflict between medieval Kings and the Church. The kings’ martial prowess and control through random acts of violence - and the church which controlled learning (through random acts of violence) and tried to tell the kings what to do. Calculating intelligence can control a bully, but you’ve got problems if the bully is also smart! See Henry VIII. He simply made himself head of the church. Smart move, eh?
> 
> To say that there is a part of the brain which is dedicated to believing in a higher power, unquestionable authority or mysticism, has been explained through the parental model. “The Big Beard in the Sky’ is the parent which wields absolute authority over the developing consciousness. How many times have you heard a parent say, “I’ll be watching you!”. Here is the birth of the idea of God. A person grows up with the belief that someone is always looking over their shoulder and will exact retribution for misdemeanours. Or at least they used to. In this country a parent is no longer allowed to discipline their child because it is regarded as child abuse. Consequently we now have generations growing up who lack the development of the concept of retribution for transgressions in their super-ego. Even the legal system has been ham-strung by rightsist legislation, so even if a transgressor is caught in young adulthood, he knows that there is no real consequence to his actions. We have allowed ourselves to think the common sense out of our society.
> 
> Essentially though, Religion is an invention of man for the purpose of regulating the behaviour of others. So is psychology, which in a secular society has become the new religion. Some practitioners of psychology may be very good, just as some priests may be very good. Unfortunately not all are. Psychiatry is essentially reverse engineering personality problems. It’s much easier to observe and record simple cause and effect. The psychiatrist is presented with an effect and seeks to determine the cause. He does so through dogmatic adherence to other peoples’ work. If the template says X is the result of Y minus Z then he bases his solution on this. If, however, X is also the product of A times B plus C, his solution will be wrong.
> 
> Both psychology and religion are wielded like blunt instruments, more often than not by people who don’t really understand them (or have their own adgenda). Take a look at Scientologists.  However, their position is often inviolable in societies which elevate their practitioners into positions of power and status.


So what are religion and law? They are mechanisms to control the behaviour of essentially selfish people when they live in large groups or societies.

This is a simplistic view. Clearly religions often form a sub culture to a given state - ie Catholicism in Communist era Poland or Buddhism in China. Where they are in cahoots with the state - then it's often a question of power in the guise of religion - though this is disputed of course. 

To say that there is a part of the brain which is dedicated to believing in a higher power, unquestionable authority or mysticism, has been explained through the parental model.

What about non Theistic religions? There is no controlling power and it is all down to personal responsibility. I think this is psychology at its simplest. A mere theory that can't really be prooven, but reduces religions to the need by individuals to be nurtured by a higher power. It's just too simple. Many are born to a religion and accept it as a fact from their culture, but other mature and intelligent people come to it in much later life. I really think it doesn't fit them either. 

Essentially though, Religion is an invention of man for the purpose of regulating the behaviour of others

I disagree. On a personal level religion is about your own behaviour. In Buddhism, it is about personal responsibility and attaining an ideal. The invention part is a moot point - The Buddha was a man who invented Buddhism - or rather re-invented it - and though I can't speak for the other religions, i bet they dispute this. 

Buddhist ideas on mindfulness and meditation practices have been widely adopted by some schools of psychology. That's good, as the methods work, though it does require the person to want to improve, stop negative thinking, see things in a different way etc etc. 

Going back to your initial description of the psychological description of the mind - id ego etc - I thought that model isn't widely used now as being too simplistic? Correct me if I am wrong - I seem to remember some thing about it.

----------


## jocky

Now I am really confused Paul. I always thought that Bhuddism was a philosophy which had a spiritual element but was not a religion in the sense that it had no Godhead. The question that comes to mind is can it be possible to practice Bhuddism and at the same time be an Atheist?

----------


## Paulclem

> Now I am really confused Paul. I always thought that Bhuddism was a philosophy which had a spiritual element but was not a religion in the sense that it had no Godhead. The question that comes to mind is can it be possible to practice Bhuddism and at the same time be an Atheist?


What is religion? Those who argue that Buddhism is not a religion tend to define religion as a belief system, which is a western notion. Religious historian Karen Armstrong defines religion as a search for transcendence, going beyond the self. 

From About.com

http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbu...philosophy.htm

Buddhism is a philosophy and it is a religion. it depends upon your point of view. It is one of the reasons that it has moved successfully to the West, and its practices have been used by psychologists. 

The spiritual element is at the core of the organised religion, though the practice remains the same whether you are an atheist or not. 

There is a strong mystical element, particularly in Mahayana or Northern Buddhsm, and whilst the supernatural element is strong in say Tibetan Buddhism, it is much less prominant in Therevadan or Southern Buddhism.

It's a case of whether a person finds the practices useful or not as to whether they use the techniques in a secular way.

----------


## Hawkman

To be honest, Paul, as we are both discussing concepts with what are, after all, broad brushes, I don't se much in your points that actually negates the general concepts of my precis. The church is a means of controling thought and actions, as is communism. Any theocracy or ideology is specifically designed to govern, by force if necesary.

I'm not sure that it is possible to have a non theistic religion. Even Buddism has the checks and balances of karmic retribution. Either way, whether meditation is religious or secular, it is still a practice in acordance to a rule. Where did the rule come from? it was invented by men to control thought processes and or behaviour in others.

If someone walked up to you in the street and told you they had recieved a direct message from god, would you believe them? Most people, if he persisted, might direct him to the nearest psychiatric ward. Some people would do as he said. There is no assureance that the person actually spoke to god. However, he might well start a new religion. It is unlikely that any established religion would sponsor him. It would challenge their authority, although I grant it might depend on what he said  :Biggrin: 

Primitive societies used divine explanations for the mechanisms of the world which were beyond their understanding. The priest casts/clans were able to use this to consolidate their power. It has always enabled them to influence government and amass wealth.

As for your last point, there may be newer and competing theories, but the Id, Ego and Super-ego paradigm was certainly the basis for Psychiatry at one time. I was not advocating psychology, far from it. If you read my piece in detail you will note that I highlight its flaws. Neither am I advocating the God Spot in the brain, although it has a certain logic to it. I'm not saying that the basic tenets of all religions are invalid either. Christs teachings and the basic ten commandments are as good a set of values to live by as any. What I object to are the innumerable interpretations and impositions by subsequent theologians. St. Paul has a lot to answer for, as do innumerable Popes and inquisitors. I'm sure there are similar theological disasters in many other basically sound religions. However, I'm probably insufficiently knowledgeable about them to speak with any certainty. All I have in these cases is imperfect recollection of hearsay.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Now I am really confused Paul. I always thought that Bhuddism was a philosophy which had a spiritual element but was not a religion in the sense that it had no Godhead. The question that comes to mind is can it be possible to practice Bhuddism and at the same time be an Atheist?


Atheism is aligned with humanism at one level and rationalism at another level, therefore I would say that it'd be impossible to combine Buddhism and atheism with any meaning at all.




> To be honest, Paul, as we are both discussing concepts with what are, after all, broad brushes, I don't se much in your points that actually negates the general concepts of my precis. The church is a means of controling thought and actions, as is communism. Any theocracy or ideology is specifically designed to govern, by force if necesary.
> 
> I'm not sure that it is possible to have a non theistic religion. Even Buddism has the checks and balances of karmic retribution. Either way, whether meditation is religious or secular, it is still a practice in acordance to a rule. Where did the rule come from? it was invented by men to control thought processes and or behaviour in others.
> 
> If someone walked up to you in the street and told you they had recieved a direct message from god, would you believe them? Most people, if he persisted, might direct him to the nearest psychiatric ward. Some people would do as he said. There is no assureance that the person actually spoke to god. However, he might well start a new religion. It is unlikely that any established religion would sponsor him. It would challenge their authority, although I grant it might depend on what he said 
> 
> Primitive societies used divine explanations for the mechanisms of the world which were beyond their understanding. The priest casts/clans were able to use this to consolidate their power. It has always enabled them to influence government and amass wealth.
> 
> As for your last point, there may be newer and competing theories, but the Id, Ego and Super-ego paradigm was certainly the basis for Psychiatry at one time. I was not advocating psychology, far from it. If you read my piece in detail you will note that I highlight its flaws. Neither am I advocating the God Spot in the brain, although it has a certain logic to it. I'm not saying that the basic tenets of all religions are invalid either. Christs teachings and the basic ten commandments are as good a set of values to live by as any. What I object to are the innumerable interpretations and impositions by subsequent theologians. St. Paul has a lot to answer for, as do innumerable Popes and inquisitors. I'm sure there are similar theological disasters in many other basically sound religions. However, I'm probably insufficiently knowledgeable about them to speak with any certainty. All I have in these cases is imperfect recollection of hearsay.


Religion is a consolidation of worry and a scapegoat.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Succinct as ever, G L.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## jocky

> Atheism is aligned with humanism at one level and rationalism at another level, therefore I would say that it'd be impossible to combine Buddhism and atheism with any meaning at all.


Am I missing something G L ? Atheism when it is stripped down to to its basic tenet is simply a rejection in the idea of a God or Gods. Given this I see no contradiction in being an atheist and practising Buddihsm. Perhaps you can point out the impossibility of this in a fuller manner. As Buddha has never been recognised universally as a God I don't see a problem with this theory, however unlikely it may seem.

----------


## cl154576

> Am I missing something G L ? Atheism when it is stripped down to to its basic tenet is simply a rejection in the idea of a God or Gods. Given this I see no contradiction in being an atheist and practising Buddihsm. Perhaps you can point out the impossibility of this in a fuller manner. As Buddha has never been recognised universally as a God I don't see a problem with this theory, however unlikely it may seem.


Atheism is simply the lack of belief. People nowadays, however, have a tendency to make it a belief of its own by associating other values with it.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Atheism is simply the lack of belief. People nowadays, however, have a tendency to make it a belief of its own by associating other values with it.


Atheistic humanism is the profoundest system of belief that I know, however it is not without its internal conflicts. But although Buddhism and secular humanism seem alike in relation to Divinity, each is in fact the other's polar opposite.

----------


## jocky

> Atheistic humanism is the profoundest system of belief that I know, however it is not without its internal conflicts. But although Buddhism and secular humanism seem alike in relation to Divinity, each is in fact the other's polar opposite.


 :Smile: 

You still have not answered the question. Dividing Atheism into categories tends to devalue it and create spurious divisions that the vast majority of non believers do not recognise. Atheistic humanism is simply an intellectual standpoint which recognises an elite in the theory that assimilates the hierarchy which is prevalent in the main stream religious faiths. In other words I know better.

It is the old story of divide and rule and how the priests of the order maintain their grip over the acolytes. Atheism as I will repeat is simply the rejection of God or Gods, nothing more nothing less. The vast majority of non believers will have no truck with Hitchens and Dawking the so called Messiahs of aggressive atheism and that is as it should be. I saw the Loch Ness monster once and that is a fact. :Devil:

----------


## G L Wilson

> You still have not answered the question. Dividing Atheism into categories tends to devalue it and create spurious divisions that the vast majority of non believers do not recognise. Atheistic humanism is simply an intellectual standpoint which recognises an elite in the theory that assimilates the hierarchy which is prevalent in the main stream religious faiths. In other words I know better.
> 
> It is the old story of divide and rule and how the priests of the order maintain their grip over the acolytes. Atheism as I will repeat is simply the rejection of God or Gods, nothing more nothing less. The vast majority of non believers will have no truck with Hitchens and Dawking the so called Messiahs of aggressive atheism and that is as it should be. I saw the Loch Ness monster once and that is a fact.


I've seen a yowie, a min min light, a spaceship and the Devil, none of which make me credible as an atheist. But, as I said elsewhere, seeing is not believing which at least makes me scientific.

----------


## jocky

> I've seen a yowie, a min min light, a spaceship and the Devil, none of which make me credible as an atheist. But, as I said elsewhere, seeing is not believing which at least makes me scientific.


 :Cheers2: 

Don't get me started on scientists they are as bad as the theologists. The cost of the Hadron Collider could pay of every debt in the western world and still leave enough over to restart the American space programme. Never mind the fact they have found trace elements of the God particle,(and the band played believe it if you like). A plague on both their houses. Good night G L  :Smile:

----------


## WyattGwyon

> Atheism is simply the lack of belief. People nowadays, however, have a tendency to make it a belief of its own by associating other values with it.


It is obvious why, given its etymology, the term atheism is interpreted as something more than a simple lack of belief, to wit: the denial of the existence of God. (The singular noun and capital G, in fact, suggest a very specific Judeo-Christian conception.) If what one wishes to convey is simple lack of belief, then it is foolish to use the term atheist at all. I simply say: "I don't believe in supernatural phenomena." 

When someone uses the term atheist, I tend to think they either haven't thought things through very carefully or that they _wish_ to define themselves, like a surly adolescent, in opposition to a specific belief system.

----------


## Paulclem

> To be honest, Paul, as we are both discussing concepts with what are, after all, broad brushes, I don't se much in your points that actually negates the general concepts of my precis. The church is a means of controling thought and actions, as is communism. Any theocracy or ideology is specifically designed to govern, by force if necesary.
> 
> I'm not sure that it is possible to have a non theistic religion. Even Buddism has the checks and balances of karmic retribution. Either way, whether meditation is religious or secular, it is still a practice in acordance to a rule. Where did the rule come from? it was invented by men to control thought processes and or behaviour in others.
> 
> If someone walked up to you in the street and told you they had recieved a direct message from god, would you believe them? Most people, if he persisted, might direct him to the nearest psychiatric ward. Some people would do as he said. There is no assureance that the person actually spoke to god. However, he might well start a new religion. It is unlikely that any established religion would sponsor him. It would challenge their authority, although I grant it might depend on what he said 
> 
> Primitive societies used divine explanations for the mechanisms of the world which were beyond their understanding. The priest casts/clans were able to use this to consolidate their power. It has always enabled them to influence government and amass wealth.
> 
> As for your last point, there may be newer and competing theories, but the Id, Ego and Super-ego paradigm was certainly the basis for Psychiatry at one time. I was not advocating psychology, far from it. If you read my piece in detail you will note that I highlight its flaws. Neither am I advocating the God Spot in the brain, although it has a certain logic to it. I'm not saying that the basic tenets of all religions are invalid either. Christs teachings and the basic ten commandments are as good a set of values to live by as any. What I object to are the innumerable interpretations and impositions by subsequent theologians. St. Paul has a lot to answer for, as do innumerable Popes and inquisitors. I'm sure there are similar theological disasters in many other basically sound religions. However, I'm probably insufficiently knowledgeable about them to speak with any certainty. All I have in these cases is imperfect recollection of hearsay.


So what are religion and law? They are mechanisms to control the behaviour of essentially selfish people when they live in large groups or societies.

The church is a means of controling thought and actions, as is communism. Any theocracy or ideology is specifically designed to govern, by force if necesary.

I still disagree, and I say it is such a simplification as to give a complete distortion. 

Burmese Buddhists
Budhists and Muslims in China - where there is still unrest
Catholics in communist Poland
Jews in Roman Jerusalem and in subsequent societies after the diaspora
Tamils in Sri Lanka
The Protestant groups in England who went on to populate the US
Sikhs in MOghul India

These were all perceived to challenge the rule of Law and the authority of the state. 

Religious values can also represent an alternative measure of the developing values of society, such as Dietrich Boenhoffer's Christian ones did against Nazi Germany, for which he was executed. And this is only looking at religion at the state level. 

Religion gives meaning to many peoples lives for good or ill. Whether they are yours or mine is neither here nor there, but, especially in the West, there is much less compulsion to follow any religion. 

I don't think it's good to perpetuate such a simplistic view as you are here. It is very easy to dismiss what was and remains an influential force that has to be recognised, acknowledged an dealt with rather than apparently dismissed as only one thing. it is neither truthful nor useful, and I think gives the wrong impression to people who may have no contact or experience of religious people and their wider (than the West's) societies. 

I'm not sure that it is possible to have a non theistic religion. 

Well if you ask the millions of Buddhists, they would confirm that it is a religion. 

Even Buddhism has the checks and balances of karmic retribution.

...which are the personal responsibility of the individual. Karmic good or ill can't be conferred by any other being on another. 

Either way, whether meditation is religious or secular, it is still a practice in acordance to a rule. Where did the rule come from? it was invented by men to control thought processes and or behaviour in others.

I have no idea what you mean by practice according to a rule. Meditation is a method taught in order to examine and develop the mind of the individual. How far this is taken, what method is used, or whether it it is practiced at all is up to the practitioner. 

If someone walked up to you in the street and told you they had recieved a direct message from god, would you believe them? Most people, if he persisted, might direct him to the nearest psychiatric ward. Some people would do as he said. There is no assureance that the person actually spoke to god. However, he might well start a new religion. It is unlikely that any established religion would sponsor him. It would challenge their authority, although I grant it might depend on what he said

I'm not sure what your point is here. 

Primitive societies used divine explanations for the mechanisms of the world which were beyond their understanding. The priest casts/clans were able to use this to consolidate their power. It has always enabled them to influence government and amass wealth.

Which religion are you referring to? You'll have to be more specific. 

If you read my piece in detail you will note that I highlight its flaws.

Yes - I got that point. I just wondered. I just don't see the Feudian model as very useful, and I thought it had been discredited.




> Atheism is aligned with humanism at one level and rationalism at another level, therefore I would say that it'd be impossible to combine Buddhism and atheism with any meaning at all.


1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

From the Online Dictionary. There may be atheists who would want to add to, or modify this description - I just copied the first reference. 

Some schools of Buddhism emphasise the metaphysical world, and others don't. Some stick to a secularised type of Buddhism, so I think you could be a Buddhist and Atheist as well. You just wouldn't accept certain aspects of the teachings, or would regard references to God realms etc as metaphors for states of mind.

----------


## Hawkman

> So what are religion and law? They are mechanisms to control the behaviour of essentially selfish people when they live in large groups or societies.
> 
> The church is a means of controling thought and actions, as is communism. Any theocracy or ideology is specifically designed to govern, by force if necesary.
> 
> I still disagree, and I say it is such a simplification as to give a complete distortion. 
> 
> Burmese Buddhists
> Budhists and Muslims in China - where there is still unrest
> Catholics in communist Poland
> ...



You seem to be ignoring the fact that all these philosophies/religions had their origins a long time before they took on the roles you descirbe, which I don't dispute. However, Someone, somewhere, sometime, thought them up. Judaism was effectively invented by Moses to unify the disparate Hebrew tribes during the exodus, and subsequently the Levites developed those laws which govern Jewish life. Catholicism could not exist without first Judaism, then Jesus, and most significantly The Roamn Empire and the emperor Constantine. Protestantism, needed both Henry VIII and Martin Luther - Men - and what did they do? They established rules to live by. These rules are intended to govern behaviour even thought, so they are a method of control.

Did a god come down and hand us our religions? No he didn't. Men invented them to establish rules to live by. Coincidentally they created tribal groups which people identify with and gain strength from, useful in persecution scenarios. All of the above is essentially true. How then is my argument simplistic and unrealistic? 




> Religious values can also represent an alternative measure of the developing values of society, such as Dietrich Boenhoffer's Christian ones did against Nazi Germany, for which he was executed. And this is only looking at religion at the state level.


National Socialism was also a philosophy invented by men (although I'll grant that if there is a Devil, he may have had a hand in it.)




> Religion gives meaning to many peoples lives for good or ill. Whether they are yours or mine is neither here nor there, but, especially in the West, there is much less compulsion to follow any religion.



I never said it didn't, in fact I remember saying that Christ's teachings and the ten commandments are a good a set of rules to live by as any. This dosen't alter the fundamental truth that religions are the inventions of men designed to govern their way of life. 




> I don't think it's good to perpetuate such a simplistic view as you are here. It is very easy to dismiss what was and remains an influential force that has to be recognised, acknowledged an dealt with rather than apparently dismissed as only one thing. it is neither truthful nor useful, and I think gives the wrong impression to people who may have no contact or experience of religious people and their wider (than the West's) societies.



I was put right off The established Christian sects when I read Church History.




> I'm not sure that it is possible to have a non theistic religion. 
> 
> Well if you ask the millions of Buddhists, they would confirm that it is a religion. 
> 
> Even Buddhism has the checks and balances of karmic retribution.
> 
> ...which are the personal responsibility of the individual. Karmic good or ill can't be conferred by any other being on another. 
> 
> Either way, whether meditation is religious or secular, it is still a practice in acordance to a rule. Where did the rule come from? it was invented by men to control thought processes and or behaviour in others.
> ...



They have to be trained how to do it and guided in the early stages by spiritual advisors, Gurus, call em what you will.




> If someone walked up to you in the street and told you they had recieved a direct message from god, would you believe them? Most people, if he persisted, might direct him to the nearest psychiatric ward. Some people would do as he said. There is no assureance that the person actually spoke to god. However, he might well start a new religion. It is unlikely that any established religion would sponsor him. It would challenge their authority, although I grant it might depend on what he said
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.


Think about it.




> Primitive societies used divine explanations for the mechanisms of the world which were beyond their understanding. The priest casts/clans were able to use this to consolidate their power. It has always enabled them to influence government and amass wealth.
> 
> Which religion are you referring to? You'll have to be more specific.


Are you serious?




> If you read my piece in detail you will note that I highlight its flaws.
> 
> Yes - I got that point. I just wondered. I just don't see the Feudian model as very useful, and I thought it had been discredited.


I agree Frued was a loony and obsessed with sex. However, he was the first person to give psychology scientific status and he was the father of analysis. Jungian archetypes are far more sensible, but still fallible. The point is that psychology is still an art/science/philosophy, invented by men as a means of healing, manipulating or controlling people. Rather like religion then.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> It is obvious why, given its etymology, the term atheism is interpreted as something more than a simple lack of belief, to wit: the denial of the existence of God. (The singular noun and capital G, in fact, suggest a very specific Judeo-Christian conception.) If what one wishes to convey is simple lack of belief, then it is foolish to use the term atheist at all. I simply say: "I don't believe in supernatural phenomena." 
> 
> When someone uses the term atheist, I tend to think they either haven't thought things through very carefully or that they _wish_ to define themselves, like a surly adolescent, in opposition to a specific belief system.


Well, it really doesn't matter what _you_ think it means, especially when what you think it means isn't at all what it means. It is not at all foolish to use the term atheist when one wants to define themselves as having a lack of belief because _that's what it means_. Because you don't want it to mean that doesn't make it so.

----------


## Hawkman

> Well, it really doesn't matter what _you_ think it means, especially when what you think it means isn't at all what it means. It is not at all foolish to use the term atheist when one wants to define themselves as having a lack of belief because _that's what it means_. Because you don't want it to mean that doesn't make it so.


Sorry Mutatis but you are confusing atheism with nihilism. Atheism is specifically the lack of belief in God(s) Nihilsim is a lack of belief in anything.

----------


## jocky

Is there any type of threat in Buddihsm as there is in the three major religions? If not I have no problem with it and see the philisophical and spiritual improvement of the individual practising its precepts as a force for good. As long as it does not advocate mutilation, revenge, the threat of eternal hellfire etc,etc it sounds harmless enough. This seems to seperate it from a religion as most authorities describe it as. I imagine someone here will know the answer to that.

----------


## Paulclem

> You seem to be ignoring the fact that all these philosophies/religions had their origins a long time before they took on the roles you descirbe, which I don't dispute. However, Someone, somewhere, sometime, thought them up. Judaism was effectively invented by Moses to unify the disparate Hebrew tribes during the exodus, and subsequently the Levites developed those laws which govern Jewish life. Catholicism could not exist without first Judaism, then Jesus, and most significantly The Roamn Empire and the emperor Constantine. Protestantism, needed both Henry VIII and Martin Luther - Men - and what did they do? They established rules to live by. These rules are intended to govern behaviour even thought, so they are a method of control.
> 
> Did a god come down and hand us our religions? No he didn't. Men invented them to establish rules to live by. Coincidentally they created tribal groups which people identify with and gain strength from, useful in persecution scenarios. All of the above is essentially true. How then is my argument simplistic and unrealistic? 
> 
> 
> 
> National Socialism was also a philosophy invented by men (although I'll grant that if there is a Devil, he may have had a hand in it.)
> 
> 
> ...


So what are religion and law? They are mechanisms to control the behaviour of essentially selfish people when they live in large groups or societies.

The church is a means of controling thought and actions, as is communism. Any theocracy or ideology is specifically designed to govern, by force if necesary.

This is what you originally said. Lots of religions grew up as alternatives to the state religion, and many of them are formed by small groups which then expand from the founders. Their intention is not control - but as an alternative to the religiouys climate of the time. I would contend that control is not the primary purpse. What governments do with such edifices is clear - used for control. I didn't dispute that, but I maintain that your original statements are simplistic. 

How then is my argument simplistic and unrealistic? 

For all the reasons I've already stated. If you look at the state aspect of religion - as you yourself agreed - then it is a simplistic assessment. If you factor in the meaning of religion to individuals - whether it is used for personal gain, personal fulfilment, spirituality, study, the quest for the ultimate in that religion, etc etc- then it very simplistic. I think it is impossible to sum up religions and their effects in such a way. 

National Socialism was also a philosophy invented by men

My point being that it was the state power that had control of law. 

They have to be trained how to do it and guided in the early stages by spiritual advisors, Gurus, call em what you will.

They don't belong to some guild that monitors what is taught etc. It's very much on an individual basis which also does not fit your all controlling model. 

If someone walked up to you in the street and told you they had recieved a direct message from god, would you believe them? Most people, if he persisted, might direct him to the nearest psychiatric ward. Some people would do as he said. There is no assureance that the person actually spoke to god. However, he might well start a new religion. It is unlikely that any established religion would sponsor him. It would challenge their authority, although I grant it might depend on what he said

This scenario is not how the religions develop. usually they come from an established tradition and break off into a new sect/ area/ theology etc. They started small and gradually attracted more followers. I think it's forgotten that most new ones faded and never got off the ground. 

Primitive societies used divine explanations for the mechanisms of the world which were beyond their understanding. The priest casts/clans were able to use this to consolidate their power. It has always enabled them to influence government and amass wealth.

Are you serious?

I could ask you the same thing. Primitive doesn't seem to go with Priests, castes and clans which suggest a more sophisticated society. I just think it's a virtually meaningless statement given the very different origins of religions and the complexity of theri development. Hinduism is so old that they are not entirely sure about the origins, just that itsmodern form has accumulated traditions that include forest meditators and writers of the Upanishads. I can't see how you can sum even that one religion up with that statement. 

It's not that I disagree with everything that you say - it's the one line summary that places what are very complex structures in much too simplistic terms. there are lots who will agree wit you, but I don't think it does anyone any favours to not challenge such a simplistic assessment.

----------


## jocky

> Well, it really doesn't matter what _you_ think it means, especially when what you think it means isn't at all what it means. It is not at all foolish to use the term atheist when one wants to define themselves as having a lack of belief because _that's what it means_. Because you don't want it to mean that doesn't make it so.


Perhaps free thinker may be a better term.

----------


## Paulclem

> Is there any type of threat in Buddihsm as there is in the three major religions? If not I have no problem with it and see the philisophical and spiritual improvement of the individual practising its precepts as a force for good. As long as it does not advocate mutilation, revenge, the threat of eternal hellfire etc,etc it sounds harmless enough. This seems to seperate it from a religion as most authorities describe it as. I imagine someone here will know the answer to that.


The threat aspect in Buddhism is through Karma. The point of Buddhism is laid out in the 4 Noble Truths which say that suffering is a fact of life, and that we all suffer, but that there is a way to escape it. 

The teachings then basically advise on what to stop doing - as it will produce bad karma for oneself, what to start doing to generate good karma and then ther are purification practices that help spiritual development. 

The purification is seen as necessary because, as we have had innumerable past lives - then the good and bad Karma we have already accumulated is also vast. What arises in any life depends upon what you nurture in your previous life. So living a hateful life will ripen hateful conditions for the next rebirth. 

Rebirth can be in any of the 3 fortunate and 3 unfortunate realms.

You can be reborn in hell, as a hungry ghost or as an animal. Or the fortunate ones are human, demi-God and God. Human is the best as it offers the opportunity to learn from suffering and apply spiritual practices. 

I should also say that the idea of rebirth is not a simple concept. When Paulclem dies - a long time hence - that will be the end of paulclem. He will be no more. What will be reborn will be a being based upon paulclem's life - not the same but caused by. 

Of course what a person taks from this is up to them. No-one will say you can only do meditation unless you are a Buddhist. Some people interpret the 6 realms of rebirth as mental states, and I think that works whether you believe in rebirth and the other realms or not. 

The Buddha's last words to his followers were

"Be a lamp to yourselves"

meaning rely upon your own experience. He advocated self discovery using the tools he had found, and not accepting things just because it is told to you. I like this about Buddhism.

----------


## Hawkman

I'm sorry Paul, I don't have time now to address all your points so I'll just mention a couple.

"National Socialism was also a philosophy invented by men" (me)

"My point being that it was the state power that had control of law." (You)

National Socialism did not spontaneously become government. It started as a bunch of disaffected people who formed a loose group and then consolidated their position through political assasination and murder before getting into power. Their philosophy was established and proclaimed before they became the government. The ideology pre-existed executive power.

"This is what you originally said. Lots of religions grew up as alternatives to the state religion, and many of them are formed by small groups which then expand from the founders. Their intention is not control - but as an alternative to the religiouys climate of the time. I would contend that control is not the primary purpse. What governments do with such edifices is clear - used for control. I didn't dispute that, but I maintain that your original statements are simplistic."

Have you read Exodus? The Hebrews were fighting each other over how to live their lives and what to worship before Moses came down from the mountain. The rules of observance by which Judaism is defined were evolved from this moment. Rules of observance are a means of governing a society. Just one example but it has its corrolations.

What you describe as alternatives to state religion is also a bit simplistc. Schism, heresy political resistance, still inventions of men designed to define a way of living. To observe the rule is to obey the rule = control of thought and word and deed.

As for my "primitive societies" I was referring to those lacking scientific knowledge. Perhaps I should have made that clearer. So we have Ancient Egypt. Eg Akenarten and his battle with the priests whose wealth and power were legendary. The Ancient Greeks and Romans, etc. etc.

Sorry, all I've got time for now. have to get some sleep.  :Biggrin: 

Live and be well - H

----------


## Paulclem

> I'm sorry Paul, I don't have time now to address all your points so I'll just mention a couple.
> 
> "National Socialism was also a philosophy invented by men" (me)
> 
> "My point being that it was the state power that had control of law." (You)
> 
> National Socialism did not spontaneously become government. It started as a bunch of disaffected people who formed a loose group and then consolidated their position through political assasination and murder before getting into power. Their philosophy was established and proclaimed before they became the government. The ideology pre-existed executive power.
> 
> "This is what you originally said. Lots of religions grew up as alternatives to the state religion, and many of them are formed by small groups which then expand from the founders. Their intention is not control - but as an alternative to the religiouys climate of the time. I would contend that control is not the primary purpse. What governments do with such edifices is clear - used for control. I didn't dispute that, but I maintain that your original statements are simplistic."
> ...


No worries. I'm tired too. :Biggrin5:

----------


## jocky

> The Buddha's last words to his followers were
> 
> "Be a lamp to yourselves"
> 
> meaning rely upon your own experience. He advocated self discovery using the tools he had found, and not accepting things just because it is told to you. I like this about Buddhism.


Thank you for taking the time to reply I appreciate that. Buddha's last words were similar to the point another literary giant made, by that I mean Shakespeare when he gave Polonius the line " to your own self be true "

My problem is simply this karma, relgion, and so on only refers to grown up sentient human beings. What happens to the children who die of starvation, the insane, the uneducated and all the rest who, without torturing the statisics, make up the majority of mankind ?

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Sorry Mutatis but you are confusing atheism with nihilism. Atheism is specifically the lack of belief in God(s) Nihilsim is a lack of belief in anything.


I just forgot to say "a lack of belief *in God*." You can see from other posts that I know the difference, I shouldve just clarified (though, I thought, in this case, it was sort of implied).

----------


## WyattGwyon

> Well, it really doesn't matter what _you_ think it means, especially when what you think it means isn't at all what it means. It is not at all foolish to use the term atheist when one wants to define themselves as having a lack of belief because _that's what it means_. Because you don't want it to mean that doesn't make it so.


You've misinterpreted my intentions: I _do_ want it to mean that! And if the term _only_ meant "having a lack of belief," I would call myself an atheist. Unfortunately, the term atheist is commonly defined as one who denies the existence of God or who professes disbelief in such an entity, and denial goes well beyond simply not believing. My point is that from the perspective of a nonbeliever, this putative act of denial gives more weight to the notion of God's existence than I think it deserves. By setting up the opposition in this way, one tacitly establishes theism as the norm and denial as exceptional (basic semiotics; unmarked and marked terms in an opposition respectively). I prefer not to make this tacit concession. Therefore, when asked about my religious views, I simply say: I don't believe in supernatural phenomena. If someone presses and asks specifically if I believe in God, I look at them quizzically and ask them what they mean by this term God. This puts the inquisitors in the position of having to define themselves and the results are often very funny. This is the way to approach the issue from a position of strength. By using the term atheist one unwittingly puts ground under the theists' feet.

----------


## jocky

> I just forgot to say "a lack of belief *in God*." You can see from other posts that I know the difference, I shouldve just clarified (though, I thought, in this case, it was sort of implied).


Implication, omission, unclarification. unimplication, clarification, differenciation, shouldveication where does it all end? Goodnight Mutatiscation.  :Biggrin5:

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> You've misinterpreted my intentions: I _do_ want it to mean that! And if the term _only_ meant "having a lack of belief," I would call myself an atheist. Unfortunately, the term atheist is commonly defined as one who denies the existence of God or who professes disbelief in such an entity, and denial goes well beyond simply not believing. My point is that from the perspective of a nonbeliever, this putative act of denial gives more weight to the notion of God's existence than I think it deserves. By setting up the opposition in this way, one tacitly establishes theism as the norm and denial as exceptional (basic semiotics; unmarked and marked terms in an opposition respectively). I prefer not to make this tacit concession. Therefore, when asked about my religious views, I simply say: I don't believe in supernatural phenomena. If someone presses and asks specifically if I believe in God, I look at them quizzically and ask them what they mean by this term God. This puts the inquisitors in the position of having to define themselves and the results are often very funny. This is the way to approach the issue from a position of strength. By using the term atheist one unwittingly puts ground under the theists' feet.


I see what you're saying. My mindset is this, though: I know what atheism really means--simply a lack of belief--and if others don't understand that, that is their problem and not mine. It's sort of like when people complain about people using big words. "Why don't you just say 'showy' instead of 'ostentatious,' " they may say. Well, because I liked the word "ostentatious," and it was a better word for the usage. That you don't understand the word is not my problem.

And, if we want to get technical, I really describe myself as an agnostic atheist (that's what it says on my Facebook page, so you know I'm serious).

But, I have to concede that, on the whole, theism really _is_ the norm. Last I heard, over 90% of the world's population believes in a god or some supernatural element to life. 



> Implication, omission, unclarification. unimplication, clarification, differenciation, shouldveication where does it all end? Goodnight Mutatiscation.


 :FRlol:

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> You've misinterpreted my intentions: I _do_ want it to mean that! And if the term _only_ meant "having a lack of belief," I would call myself an atheist. Unfortunately, the term atheist is commonly defined as one who denies the existence of God or who professes disbelief in such an entity, and denial goes well beyond simply not believing. My point is that from the perspective of a nonbeliever, this putative act of denial gives more weight to the notion of God's existence than I think it deserves. By setting up the opposition in this way, one tacitly establishes theism as the norm and denial as exceptional (basic semiotics; unmarked and marked terms in an opposition respectively). I prefer not to make this tacit concession. Therefore, when asked about my religious views, I simply say: I don't believe in supernatural phenomena. If someone presses and asks specifically if I believe in God, I look at them quizzically and ask them what they mean by this term God. This puts the inquisitors in the position of having to define themselves and the results are often very funny. This is the way to approach the issue from a position of strength. By using the term atheist one unwittingly puts ground under the theists' feet.


I agree with what you've said here. Usually those who claim to be atheists (and it's demonstrated here at this site) tend not only to have a lack of belief, but they are adamant to point out that anyone who DOES belief must be an idiot. They also usually try to demonize the majority of believers as fundamentalist nutcases. ...and yes, I am sure that this comment will get a demeaning offensive response.

----------


## jocky

> I agree with what you've said here. Usually those who claim to be atheists (and it's demonstrated here at this site) tend not only to have a lack of belief, but they are adamant to point out that anyone who DOES belief must be an idiot. They also usually try to demonize the majority of believers as fundamentalist nutcases. ...and yes, I am sure that this comment will get a demeaning offensive response.


Not at all give me a cuddle, you have cherry picked some responses and have made some assumptions that you had before you posted. I do not believe for one minute that anyone thinks that because you disagree with some of the points made that your religion or your attitude makes you a nutcase.

I never admitted I was an atheist, all I did was to point out what it meant and despite some of the criticism it still boils down to the same thing, a rejection of the idea Of God or Gods, how hard is that to understand? I hope that was not demeaning or offensive.

----------


## Vonny

> I agree with what you've said here. Usually those who claim to be atheists (and it's demonstrated here at this site) tend not only to have a lack of belief, but they are adamant to point out that anyone who DOES belief must be an idiot. They also usually try to demonize the majority of believers as fundamentalist nutcases. ...and yes, I am sure that this comment will get a demeaning offensive response.


But you called someone an idiot on the anonymous thread. It said "YOU are an idiot." Now, there must have been hundreds of people who wondered if that was intended for them. I'll admit I was one of them. 

If I were you and people called me, or even my buddies - an idiot - I'd feel that I had it coming.

I'm not saying this to be demeaning or offensive. Just wishing I could bring a little awareness. I'd like a cuddle too!

----------


## Paulclem

> Thank you for taking the time to reply I appreciate that. Buddha's last words were similar to the point another literary giant made, by that I mean Shakespeare when he gave Polonius the line " to your own self be true "
> 
> My problem is simply this karma, relgion, and so on only refers to grown up sentient human beings. What happens to the children who die of starvation, the insane, the uneducated and all the rest who, without torturing the statisics, make up the majority of mankind ?


In the texts it talks of the Precious Human Life which is very rare - considering the multitudes of beings that there are on this planet, different realms and according to the teachings, different worlds. 

We have a precious human life where we can live with a minimum of suffering and have the leisure to pursue a better life/ conditions/ spirituality. One of the reasons that it is precious is that so much can be achieved by one human through helping others etc etc. If you are starving, have mental problems or live unde a dictatorship - these aren't possible. 

The Karma that results in a Precious Human Life depends upon the virtuousness of the being in the previous life/ lives ripening. The conditions are created by the being. The conditions required are the good human qualities. Otherwise, with no preparation it may be that a being ends up in one of the other realms or in a human life where condtions are bad due to a ripening of negative karma.

It seems to explain why it is that people can go bad, and do awful things and seem to be successful in one life. The conditions where they can wield power have been created - the results of what they do with that are stored up then, and unless there is purification, they will get a karmic result from that. 

These are generalities. The Buddha said that an individual's karma is very complex, and it is difficult to draw conclusions about a person from what we see. So if we see a disabled person, we cannot come to the conclusin that in their previous life they were a bad person and deserve their punishment which is what Glen Hoddle implied before he was ejected from the England Manager post. Karma is accumulated from many lives previous. 

You also can't say that the person in this life did bad things in a previous life. there is a relationship - but they are not the same personality/ individual because that part of a person - their character and individuality - is something that is impermanent, (though in our deluded view we consider it to be permanent). The teachings say that all beings want happiness, but are often deluded into thinking certain courses of action will bring it to them. In the short term it might - but in the long run suffering results from their actions. 

What karma is not is a simple cause and effect from life to life, just as a being is related but different when they are reincarnated. reincarnation is certainly not the the same as that promoted by some westerners when the yclaim to be important people in the past. For a start it wasn't them on the individual/ personality level. 

I hope that answers your question a bit Jocky. If you get me started I just go on and on!  :Biggrin5:

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> I agree with what you've said here. Usually those who claim to be atheists (and it's demonstrated here at this site) tend not only to have a lack of belief, but they are adamant to point out that anyone who DOES belief must be an idiot.


Yes, because atheists never get any flack.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> But you called someone an idiot on the anonymous thread. It said "YOU are an idiot." Now, there must have been hundreds of people who wondered if that was intended for them. I'll admit I was one of them. 
> 
> If I were you and people called me, or even my buddies - an idiot - I'd feel that I had it coming.
> 
> I'm not saying this to be demeaning or offensive. Just wishing I could bring a little awareness. I'd like a cuddle too!


I'm sorry, but I use the Anonymous Thread in jest....because of what it is...it's an Anonymous thread. It has often been used for jesting. Sometimes it's just to relieve frustrations. I would hope that people would not use the thread for paranoia.

However, I have had some people deliberately direct implications (if not explicit comments) at me for the "idiocy of believing in God". There have even been threads started to ridicule me because I believe in certain Biblical accounts. I'm NOT saying that ALL atheists do this, but there is a large percentage that do.

----------


## G L Wilson

It is in the perversity of dreams that a religious person gives meaning to life. It is a fiction with no ending, a nightmare in actuality.

----------


## Paulclem

I'm happy. :Biggrin5:

----------


## G L Wilson

> I'm happy.


I'm sure you are!

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I think something that religious and non-religious people can agree on is that good tasting food tastes good. Isn't that so nice?

----------


## Paulclem

It is. :Biggrin5:

----------


## G L Wilson

What human being doesn't mind creating havoc to be happy? As Nietzsche says, "To forget one's purpose is the commonest form of stupidity." Religious people have no purpose in life other than self-destruction. Religion is the faith of nihilism.

----------


## Drkshadow03

Ah, it's good to see this thread is still being productive and full of such profound wisdom from the usual suspects.




> I'm happy.


Only in a person's most perverse dreams could they possibly want to be happy. Happiness is merely a fiction, in actuality a nightmare. Only weirdoes want to be happy.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> What human being doesn't mind creating havoc to be happy? As Nietzsche says, "To forget one's purpose is the commonest form of stupidity." Religious people have no purpose in life other than self-destruction. Religion is the faith of nihilism.


I have NO desire to create havoc just to support my own happiness. That is called selfishness. I have great purpose in life. If you want to generalize yourself, do so, but leave the rest of the world out of it.

----------


## Vonny

> I have NO desire to create havoc just to support my own happiness. That is called selfishness.


Jesus didn't jest, He wept.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Jesus didn't jest, He wept.


Who was jesting?

----------


## Vonny

> Who was jesting?



John 11:35

Jesus wept

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> John 11:35
> 
> Jesus wept


Yes, I am familiar with the account. He wept because His dear friend Lazarus had died. But what does that have to do with jesting?

----------


## Vonny

> I'm sorry, but I use the Anonymous Thread in jest....because of what it is...it's an Anonymous thread. It has often been used for jesting. Sometimes it's just to relieve frustrations. I would hope that people would not use the thread for paranoia


Jesus wouldn't have called out "YOU are an Idiot" in a crowd and then said He was jesting and insinuated that whoever thought may have have been for her was paranoid.

He also wouldn't have said, "I don't care about your brother" to a woman and then sent her a friendship request.

And Jesus didn't jest.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Jesus wouldn't have called out "YOU are an Idiot" in a crowd and then said He was jesting and insinuated that whoever thought may have have been for her was paranoid.
> 
> He also wouldn't have said, "I don't care about your brother" to a woman and then sent her a friendship request.
> 
> And Jesus didn't jest.


So much taken out of context.

"I don't care about your brother" was to mean that "I'm not about to judge your brother in his situation."

"YOU are an idiot" was not meant to be anything but me releasing my frustrations....not to be taken seriously.

I sent you a friend request, because I see a sincere individual. Why do you judge me so harshly?

----------


## Vonny

> So much taken out of context.
> 
> "I don't care about your brother" was to mean that "I'm not about to judge your brother in his situation."
> 
> "YOU are an idiot" was not meant to be anything but me releasing my frustrations....not to be taken seriously.
> 
> I sent you a friend request, because I see a sincere individual. Why do you judge me so harshly?



I don't think I judged you, but if I'm confused it's because I've been caused to stumble by people many years older than myself.

Romans 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

You didn't say, "I don't want to judge" you said "I don't care." So to say that I'm taking out of context is twisted.

Why don't I assume you are sincere? 

Christians don't do things anonymously, they live in the light. 1John 2:10

Also, why do you assume you will receive a negative response? It could be a cuddly person like Jocky who comes along after you. 

Ephesians 4:32
And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Yes, I am familiar with the account. He wept because His dear friend Lazarus had died. But what does that have to do with jesting?


For Pete's sake, think about it. Vonny is saying to mind your footsteps.

----------


## Vonny

If Jesus wept over Lazarus he may also weep if Christians go into Heaven like an ash pressed into the hole in the palm of His hand.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> If Jesus wept over Lazarus he may also weep if Christians go into Heaven like an ash pressed into the hole in the palm of His hand.


What do you mean?

----------


## Vonny

> What do you mean?


In high school my friend's brother could always debate the LDS until they were speechless. They consequently went after his younger sister.

It's like my friend said after sustaining much worse head injuries than the LDS kids ever did on on the soccer field, "I wonder what will happen some day when they die and learn the truth?"

----------


## G L Wilson

> What do you mean?


For pity's sake, do I have to translate everything into words that you can understand? Vonny is saying that you should be careful not to hurt the wounds of Christ.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> In high school my friend's brother could always debate the LDS until they were speechless. They consequently went after his younger sister.
> 
> It's like my friend said after sustaining much worse head injuries than the LDS kids ever did on on the soccer field, "I wonder what will happen some day when they die and learn the truth?"


I'm not familiar with the acronym, LDS.

----------


## Vonny

> For pity's sake, do I have to translate everything into words that you can understand? Vonny is saying that you should be careful not to hurt the wounds of Christ.


Thanks for helping me out Wilson.

LDS - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints


frustrations:

psalm 37:8 Cease from anger and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.

1John 2:10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

In case you are wondering why two atheists would feel more compassion for one Christian than another, it's because one seems kind, caring and sensitive. The other appears to be seeking to inflict pain on just about everyone. The type of Christian I can coexist with the most easily believes that their faith is based on peace, love, and empathy. The Christian who hates is sick indeed, and dangerous. Open up those eyes, man.

Like someone else recently said, there's something about Vonny that makes me want to give her a hug.

----------


## Vonny

> In case you are wondering why two atheists would feel more compassion for one Christian than another, it's because one seems kind, caring and sensitive. The other appears to be seeking to inflict pain on just about everyone. The type of Christian I can coexist with the most easily believes that their faith is based on peace, love, and empathy. The Christian who hates is sick indeed, and dangerous. Open up those eyes, man.
> 
> Like someone else recently said, there's something about Vonny that makes me want to give her a hug.


A hug to you Varenne

----------


## Paulclem

> Ah, it's good to see this thread is still being productive and full of such profound wisdom from the usual suspects.
> 
> 
> 
> Only in a person's most perverse dreams could they possibly want to be happy. Happiness is merely a fiction, in actuality a nightmare. Only weirdoes want to be happy.


I know. Isn't it awful - I mean good... in a nightmarish way that is.

----------


## Vonny

> In case you are wondering why two atheists would feel more compassion for one Christian than another, it's because one seems kind, caring and sensitive. The other appears to be seeking to inflict pain on just about everyone. The type of Christian I can coexist with the most easily believes that their faith is based on peace, love, and empathy. The Christian who hates is sick indeed, and dangerous. Open up those eyes, man.
> 
> Like someone else recently said, there's something about Vonny that makes me want to give her a hug.



I actually had another thought along with the hug, but I didn't say it because it sounds a bit naughty, but I'll go ahead...


Maybe someday we'll have a threesome, in the tradition of the Latter-day Saints aka Mormons. (It's a joke, but not one that hurts anyone.)

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Hahaha.

----------


## jocky

> Yes, I am familiar with the account. He wept because His dear friend Lazarus had died. But what does that have to do with jesting?


There is a wee bit of ironic humour in that. Why would JC weep when he knew he could ressurect his mates anytime he felt like it ? 

For Gods sake big man why did you wait four days to bring me back ? 

To prove my ways are unknowable and confuse future generations. You really need to go and have a shower.  :Skep:

----------


## G L Wilson

> There is a wee bit of ironic humour in that. Why would JC weep when he knew he could ressurect his mates anytime he felt like it ? 
> 
> For Gods sake big man why did you wait four days to bring me back ? 
> 
> To prove my ways are unknowable and confuse future generations. You really need to go and have a shower.


It's a wee bit more complicated than that, jocky. Jesus was weeping because he was being forced to resurrect Lazarus.

----------


## jocky

> It's a wee bit more complicated than that, jocky. Jesus was weeping because he was being forced to resurrect Lazarus.


That is the problem G L everything in the scriptures has been poured over by the God squad ad infinitum and simple teachings that most humans can relate to have been obscured and turned into intellectual debates. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but I can relate to the Sermont on the Mount story which reflects the very best qualities of religion. This, in my opinion, is humanity at its finest but it is not divine. Cheers.

----------


## G L Wilson

> That is the problem G L everything in the scriptures has been poured over by the God squad ad infinitum and simple teachings that most humans can relate to have been obscured and turned into intellectual debates. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but I can relate to the Sermont on the Mount story which reflects the very best qualities of religion. This, in my opinion, is humanity at its finest but it is not divine. Cheers.


I too find it intolerable for my interpretation of Scripture to be judged incorrect when there is no one way of reading anything. Why should Scripture be judged a special case? The Bible like any other book should be used without fear in any way we see fit. As a humanist, I find that the most annoying people are mostly my fellow humanists who lack any sense of proportion and come down hard on any transgressions in fashion as if humanism was somehow a cult.

----------


## cl154576

I find that some people force their beliefs onto the text. If they believe, for instance, they interpret scenes that seem offensive on a deep, highly symbolic level that erases all the offense. If they don't believe sometimes they nitpick or twist.

It is very irritating. I am atheist but I will not force myself to believe that everything in the Bible is bad or wrong.

----------


## G L Wilson

Most humanists reckon that if you quote the Bible that you are devoted to it but then most humanists are idiots.

----------


## jocky

> Most humanists reckon that if you quote the Bible that you are devoted to it but then most humanists are idiots.


 :Biggrin5: 

There are a few notable exceptions:

I just can't think who at the moment. No doubt someone will let us know.

----------


## G L Wilson

> There are a few notable exceptions:
> 
> I just can't think who at the moment. No doubt someone will let us know.


Christopher Hitchens is a free thinker if ever there was one. I'm one. You're one by the sounds of it, jocky. Young cl is a rather promising thinker. There are quite a number of free thinkers in the world; but no matter how many there are, there will always be a pile of idiots piled on top of them.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I'm one, I think.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I'm one, I think.


Clearly, Varenne, you are. But most people could have their heads punched in by a hammer and they would still go on talking the same as always.

----------


## Paulclem

I think that religions attempt to develop a meaning to life that goes beyond the everyday. In the past, most lives were shorter and death was much more apparent. People were brought up close to death sooner, and in all probability experienced death to a much greater extent than we do - in the West certainly. 

How many dead people do we see? For most of us we may only see an open coffin, or view a relative in a chapel if that. Death these days is very sanitary. it is swept away by a very efficient undertaker/ morgue/ hospital system that really takes away the up close horror of what death might hold for us. I'm not saying this is a bad thing by the way, though it may weaken our appreciation of what death is. 

In the face of no alternative, religions have developed in different parts of the world to address this issue. What is our nature? Do we end when our body dies? Is what I do therefore meaningful? 

These are valid and important questions,and ones that may be dismissed, but they are ones which we will all face on a very personal level. Whatever your take on teligion, it is an attempt to come to terms with and explain this. This is the core of religions, and while science may provide us with the answers to lots of questions and discredits - for the good in my opinion - attempts by religious people to deny scientific truth - it does not answer these questions. 

Religion is often seen only as a power play, and this is a superficial, political take on what a religion is about. Regarding it only in this way does not admit that it has been an effort to root out the meaning and truth of our existence.

Of course, some religions do not help themselves by their complacency, and disregard for other explanations. Bastions of supposed truth are built, and orthodoxy developed around this, and, as with all inflexibility, cracks in the theology, or inadequacy in ethics appear. 

This does not mean that religions started off with these faults. They began as attempts to answer ultimate truths. 

Some people have an agenda against religions in general, but following their orthodoxy may well be just as inhibiting as adopting a unquestioning religious orthodoxy.

----------


## YesNo

> Christopher Hitchens is a *free thinker* if ever there was one. I'm one. You're one by the sounds of it, jocky. Young cl is a rather promising thinker. There are quite a number of free thinkers in the world; but no matter how many there are, there will always be a pile of *idiots* piled on top of them.


There once was a moron named Moe
Who questioned the free thinker, Joe,
"So, you think that you're bright?"
And Joe said, "Yeah, that's right,"
As they wait for their nurses to show.

----------


## G L Wilson

> There once was a moron named Moe
> Who questioned the free thinker, Joe,
> "So, you think that you're bright?"
> And Joe said, "Yeah, that's right,"
> As they wait for their nurses to show.


Once a person named YesNo
near Chicago
was asked, "What do you know?",
and she said, "I don't know,
I'm a little slow."

----------


## YesNo

> Once a person named YesNo
> near Chicago
> was asked, "What do you know?",
> and she said, "I don't know,
> I'm a little slow."


Glad you liked it, GL!

----------


## Drkshadow03

> There once was a moron named Moe
> Who questioned the free thinker, Joe,
> "So, you think that you're bright?"
> And Joe said, "Yeah, that's right,"
> As they wait for their nurses to show.


"If you want to be one of the nonconformists all you have to do is dress just like us and listen to the same music we do" - Goth kids from South Park.  :Biggrin5:

----------


## G L Wilson

To be absurd all one needs to do is to get on a thread called British Literature vs. American Literature and then throw foodstuffs at each other.

----------


## Melanie

How is Religion supposed to give meaning to life? It's not. Christianity, for one, is not a religion, it's a relationship. Relationship gives meaning to life. Having a relationship with God, our creator, gives meaning to life. Praying, reading his words, using the talents he's given us toward our purpose he's given us (Our Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren). Helping others. Obeying his words. Taking care of our planet, our flora and fauna and air, and brothers etc. And so much more.

----------


## Phantaghiro12

> How is Religion supposed to give meaning to life? It's not. Christianity, for one, is not a religion, it's a relationship. Relationship gives meaning to life. Having a relationship with God, our creator, gives meaning to life. Praying, reading his words, using the talents he's given us toward our purpose he's given us (Our Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren). Helping others. Obeying his words. Taking care of our planet, our flora and fauna and air, and brothers etc. And so much more.


God does whatever he pleases. He makes us worship him, do what he says. Simple as that.

If a President can rule our life, what's more GOD.

GOD rules over everything and everyone in the world.

The reward of worshipping him? A place you call Heaven. If not you end up in Hell.

Just like living in a country. You follow rules you are safe. You break rules, you go to prison.

Simple.

----------


## Red Herring

> God does whatever he pleases. He makes us worship him, do what he says. Simple as that.
> 
> If a President can rule our life, what's more GOD.
> 
> GOD rules over everything and everyone in the world.
> 
> The reward of worshipping him? A place you call Heaven. If not you end up in Hell.
> 
> Just like living in a country. You follow rules you are safe. You break rules, you go to prison.
> ...


Are you sure you know what the rules are exactly?

God indeed does whatever he pleases.

----------


## HCabret

> How is Religion supposed to give meaning to life? It's not. Christianity, for one, is not a religion, it's a relationship. Relationship gives meaning to life. Having a relationship with God, our creator, gives meaning to life. Praying, reading his words, using the talents he's given us toward our purpose he's given us (Our Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren). Helping others. Obeying his words. Taking care of our planet, our flora and fauna and air, and brothers etc. And so much more.


Chrsitianity isnt a religion. Atheism isnt a religion. I'm now convinced that religion doesnt actually exist.

----------


## HCabret

> God does whatever he pleases. He makes us worship him, do what he says. Simple as that.
> 
> If a President can rule our life, what's more GOD.
> 
> GOD rules over everything and everyone in the world.
> 
> The reward of worshipping him? A place you call Heaven. If not you end up in Hell.
> 
> Just like living in a country. You follow rules you are safe. You break rules, you go to prison.
> ...


which god are you referring to? Why must life be a reward-based endeavor, as opposed to just being for its own sake? which heaven? which hell? whats so great about heaven and so bad about hell? have you ever read Siddhartha?

----------


## Munshie

Seems strange to me that atheists attend church to socialise when there are numerous non-religious venues to meet people.

----------


## Munshie

All religions are about a relationship with a deity/deities. They are all characterised by the deity inisisting upon wanting to be worshipped. The rest (following all the directives set out in this very lop-sided realtionship) are not enough to buy a ticket to heaven. The God worship is essential. BTW atheist also concerned about looking after other people and the planet.

----------


## HCabret

> All religions are about a relationship with a deity/deities. They are all characterised by the deity inisisting upon wanting to be worshipped. The rest (following all the directives set out in this very lop-sided realtionship) are not enough to buy a ticket to heaven. The God worship is essential. BTW atheist also concerned about looking after other people and the planet.


The Nastika religions of India all lack deities. Not all religions concern deities. Many people consider "atheism" itself to be a religion. 

There is nothing wrong with religion.  There is something wrong with saying your world view is right and that all others you disagree with are wrong. 

Atheism is no more inherently correct than any other world view.

----------


## Munshie

Drkshadow03

At the very least what you say about those holy texts being meaningful without God is *contentious*. They may make good stories like Wind In The Willows (or any other piece of fiction) but the killing and maiming and the strict rules of how to behave (including diet ect.) is imo is 'rationalised' or made acceptable only by a believe in God.

----------


## Margerma

> All religions are about a relationship with a deity/deities. They are all characterised by the deity inisisting upon wanting to be worshipped. The rest (following all the directives set out in this very lop-sided realtionship) are not enough to buy a ticket to heaven. The God worship is essential. BTW atheist also concerned about looking after other people and the planet.


 re atheism. Absolutely agree. I cannot make my head around when kids are taught to be good, kind and helpful as "they are Christians"(on example of my son's school). I think it is wrong. Kids (who are growing into adults) should be kind and caring as they are Humans. Homo Sapiens. All the rest - if they are Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists Etr. - irrelevant. Atheists are nice people as well. If they are not - it has nothing to do with the religion.

----------


## Munshie

HCabret

So tell us about these Nastika religions and exactly what they believe because frankly I'm not prepared to take your word for it. Even buddhism in some of its forms despite not originally accepting the notion of a deity to be worshipped (because one ultimately becomes God through belief and good works) has changed to where there is a notion of a deity with which a person becomes one. You reiterate a common misunderstanding of atheism. It is not a religion. There is no organised belief system and no commonality among atheists other than they are not convinced there is evidence to support the notion of a deity. This idea of atheism as a religion is only a blacklack by theist who want to argue that fundamentally atheist are the same as theists. 

_"There is nothing wrong with religion."_

That is debateable but too long to go into at this moment in time. (May be at a later date.)

Now tell me where I said that everybody else is wrong and I'm right? I simply put forward a different view.

----------


## HCabret

> HCabret
> 
> So tell us about these Nastika religions and exactly what they believe because frankly I'm not prepared to take your word for it. Even buddhism in some of its forms despite not originally accepting the notion of a deity to be worshipped (because one ultimately becomes God through belief and good works) has changed to where there is a notion of a deity with which a person becomes one. You reiterate a common misunderstanding of atheism. It is not a religion. There is no organised belief system and no commonality among atheists other than they are not convinced there is evidence to support the notion of a deity. This idea of atheism as a religion is only a blacklack by theist who want to argue that fundamentally atheist are the same as theists. 
> 
> _"There is nothing wrong with religion."_
> 
> That is debateable but too long to go into at this moment in time. (May be at a later date.)
> 
> 
> Now tell me where I said that everybody else is wrong and I'm right? I simply put forward a different view.


All Buddhists reject the concept of deities. Jains are even more orthodox concerning this position. 

Regardless of your position as to whether it not atheism is or is not a religion, there is a large group of people which do classify it as being a religion. 

My beef is with dogma. I don't like when atheists claim that their world view is correct and all other opposing view points are automatically wrong, just because their run counter to atheism. I never said that you said anything, I was simply pointing out my dislike for dogmatic approaches.

----------


## Munshie

HCabret

_"Regardless of your position as to whether it not atheism is or is not a religion, there is a large group of people which do classify it as being a religion."_

Interestingly no atheist sees it that way! The argument about atheism being a religion is used by some theists to make out that basically atheist are the same as theist, but just with a diffferent set of beliefs. It could be characterised as a retaliotory reaction by religious types to the criticism the receive from atheists. Fundamentally theists work on the notion of 'faith' while atheist do not operate on faith, but 'evidence' (for want of a better word). Many atheists can and do argue that if there was clear and unequivocal evidence for God, there would be no need for faith. In that situation God would be considered a fact. 

I did briefly notice yesterday that one of the comments on this forum was along the the line that science/scientists also operate on faith too. I have heard similar arguments essentially saying that when when someone steps on a plane they have faith/belief that they will arrive safely at their destination. IMO that shows a profound misunderstanding of science and its methodology. I do not need to step on board a plane with faith. I can check the the reliability of jet engines, analyse the statistics about the safety of air travel generally or a specific carrier etc. In the light of that I can choose whether or not to board the flight. If there is a life-threatening error in the technology, or mental stability of the pilot, no amount of faith is going to stop the ensuing accident.

Fine you have a beef with dogma - so do I. That said we need to remember that dogma is very common in religions - some would go as far as arguing that it is characteristic of all religions. Science is a methodology and while it has some weaknesses it has given us not only all the technology at our disposal, but also a good understanding of the physical world.

----------


## Munshie

HCabret

_"Astika and Nastika do not mean "theism" and "atheism" respectively in ancient or medieval era Sanskrit literature.[4] In current Indian languages like Hindi, āstika usually means "theist", while nāstika means "atheist".[10] However, the terms are used differently in Hindu philosophy.[11] For example, Sāṃkhya is both an atheist and āstika (Vedic) philosophy.[12]"_

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80...d_n%C4%81stika


It would appear matters are not as straightforward as you suggest!

----------


## YesNo

> Interestingly no atheist sees it that way! The argument about atheism being a religion is used by some theists to make out that basically atheist are the same as theist, but just with a diffferent set of beliefs. It could be characterised as a retaliotory reaction by religious types to the criticism the receive from atheists. Fundamentally theists work on the notion of 'faith' while atheist do not operate on faith, but 'evidence' (for want of a better word). Many atheists can and do argue that if there was clear and unequivocal evidence for God, there would be no need for faith. In that situation God would be considered a fact.


One of the "beliefs" that atheists have is that they have no beliefs. 

Most of the stuff we believe we are not even aware of until we are challenged in some way to examine it. Our common sense goes unnoticed. 

For example, what does your common sense tell you about the reality of psi phenomena? 

Another example, what is your interpretation of quantum physics? Do you believe in many worlds, superdeterminism, an ability to cause events to happen in the past, or do you believe that consciousness causes collapse? If you believe that consciousness causes collapse I think you are inevitably led to some "cosmic consciousness" which for all practical purposes is a God.

What do you believe is true about consciousness itself? Is it an epiphenomenon of the body, or is the body an ephiphenomenon of some mind, or do you believe in a form of dualism where both body and mind interact in some way?

----------


## mortalterror

> One of the "beliefs" that atheists have is that they have no beliefs.


It's one of the most frustrating things about conversing with them. They often think that atheism isn't a belief, isn't a system of connected beliefs, isn't a movement, and that they've arrived at whatever assumptions they do hold independently through reason.




> Most of the stuff we believe we are not even aware of until we are challenged in some way to examine it. Our common sense goes unnoticed. 
> 
> For example, what does your common sense tell you about the reality of psi phenomena?


Mostly it's bunk, but I leave the possibility open, 'cause there's a lot of weirdness in the world and a lot of other people are convinced. Maybe, someone knows something I don't.




> Another example, what is your interpretation of quantum physics? Do you believe in many worlds,


Not really.




> superdeterminism,


Free will makes sense to me.




> an ability to cause events to happen in the past,


Time travel? I don't think we're there yet.




> or do you believe that consciousness causes collapse? If you believe that consciousness causes collapse I think you are inevitably led to some "cosmic consciousness" which for all practical purposes is a God.


I think the world is the world whatever we think about it or even if we don't.




> What do you believe is true about consciousness itself? Is it an epiphenomenon of the body, or is the body an ephiphenomenon of some mind, or do you believe in a form of dualism where both body and mind interact in some way?


I think there is a bit of dualism going on. Whatever we are when separated from our bodies, the soul, might not even be called consciousness as we understand it.

----------


## YesNo

> It's one of the most frustrating things about conversing with them. They often think that atheism isn't a belief, isn't a system of connected beliefs, isn't a movement, and that they've arrived at whatever assumptions they do hold independently through reason.


Some atheists also believe that religion is a social construction. That is, they believe that children are born atheists and are later culturally indoctrinated by their parents into theism. That belief has been falsified by child psychologists. (See Justin L. Barrett's, "Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Beliefs") 

I don't mind atheists having faith in such stuff, just don't say such faith represents science.




> Mostly it's bunk, but I leave the possibility open, 'cause there's a lot of weirdness in the world and a lot of other people are convinced. Maybe, someone knows something I don't.


My justifications for accepting psi phenomena come from the research done by Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake. I think the evidence has been available and clear in a scientific context for the last hundred years since the time of William James.

However, I agree that it goes against my own common sense view of what is humanly possible, but then I wonder why do I think I know what is humanly possible? Mostly my common sense is limited by a bias toward Newtonian determinism where we are each of us individuals bumping against each other like balls on a social billiards table. Intellectually, I know that is outdated, but I find it is not easy to think differently.




> I think the world is the world whatever we think about it or even if we don't.


Yes. The world is really out there. That's crucial to Berkeley's argument for the existence of God. Although everything is an "idea" for him, the world can't be simply_ my_ idea since it is so consistent from day to day and agrees with what others are describing even when I'm not thinking about it. That implies there is a Mind manifesting it, "sustaining" it so to speak.

Quantum physics, assuming the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation, provides a scientific justification for Berkeley's philosophical argument. There is no underlying unconscious matter behind the phenomena we experience through our human interface to that reality. And yet our interface is consistent from day to day and we can agree on what we see. That leads to "cosmic consciousness" which sustains the phenomena.

The alternative quantum interpretations try to counter this because it does lead to theism. They are various forms of many worlds, superdeterminism or backward-in-time causality. If one is willing to accept any of these speculations one might as well accept the existence of a God since they all seem, at least to me, more far-fetched than a generic theism.

----------


## HCabret

> HCabret
> 
> _"Regardless of your position as to whether it not atheism is or is not a religion, there is a large group of people which do classify it as being a religion."_
> 
> Interestingly no atheist sees it that way! The argument about atheism being a religion is used by some theists to make out that basically atheist are the same as theist, but just with a diffferent set of beliefs. It could be characterised as a retaliotory reaction by religious types to the criticism the receive from atheists. Fundamentally theists work on the notion of 'faith' while atheist do not operate on faith, but 'evidence' (for want of a better word). Many atheists can and do argue that if there was clear and unequivocal evidence for God, there would be no need for faith. In that situation God would be considered a fact. 
> 
> I did briefly notice yesterday that one of the comments on this forum was along the the line that science/scientists also operate on faith too. I have heard similar arguments essentially saying that when when someone steps on a plane they have faith/belief that they will arrive safely at their destination. IMO that shows a profound misunderstanding of science and its methodology. I do not need to step on board a plane with faith. I can check the the reliability of jet engines, analyse the statistics about the safety of air travel generally or a specific carrier etc. In the light of that I can choose whether or not to board the flight. If there is a life-threatening error in the technology, or mental stability of the pilot, no amount of faith is going to stop the ensuing accident.
> 
> Fine you have a beef with dogma - so do I. That said we need to remember that dogma is very common in religions - some would go as far as arguing that it is characteristic of all religions. Science is a methodology and while it has some weaknesses it has given us not only all the technology at our disposal, but also a good understanding of the physical world.


Christians don't think that Christianity is a religion either. I don't understand the phobia of the word "religion". Are people afraid that if the word "religion" is used to describe their beliefs that will therefore be considered equally valid as all other religions? 

PostScript. Atheism has literally nothing to do with science whatsoever.

----------


## HCabret

> Some atheists also believe that religion is a social construction. That is, they believe that children are born atheists and are later culturally indoctrinated by their parents into theism. That belief has been falsified by child psychologists. (See Justin L. Barrett's, "Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Beliefs") 
> 
> I don't mind atheists having faith in such stuff, just don't say such faith represents science.
> 
> 
> 
> My justifications for accepting psi phenomena come from the research done by Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake. I think the evidence has been available and clear in a scientific context for the last hundred years since the time of William James.
> 
> However, I agree that it goes against my own common sense view of what is humanly possible, but then I wonder why do I think I know what is humanly possible? Mostly my common sense is limited by a bias toward Newtonian determinism where we are each of us individuals bumping against each other like balls on a social billiards table. Intellectually, I know that is outdated, but I find it is not easy to think differently.
> ...


Religion is a social construct. Atheism is a religion. Newborns barely have the ability to eat without choking, let alone being capable of determining whether deities may or may not exist. 

Atheism has nothing to do with science. There is no scientific evidence concerning whether any deity exists or not. The question of whether deities exist or not is a philosophical and literary question, not a scientific one.

----------


## mortalterror

> Religion is a social construct. Atheism is a religion. Newborns barely have the ability to eat without choking, let alone being capable of determining whether deities may or may not exist.


Actually, yesno is correct. Religious thinking is innate in our biology the same as language. The particular forms it takes are socially constructed. You can read about it in the book yesno mentioned or other scientific sources such as the psychologist Paul Bloom who's done extensive research on how babies develop.




> Atheism has nothing to do with science. There is no scientific evidence concerning whether any deity exists or not. The question of whether deities exist or not is a philosophical and literary question, not a scientific one.


Right on the money there.

----------


## mortalterror

> Some atheists also believe that religion is a social construction. That is, they believe that children are born atheists and are later culturally indoctrinated by their parents into theism. That belief has been falsified by child psychologists. (See Justin L. Barrett's, "Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Beliefs") 
> 
> I don't mind atheists having faith in such stuff, just don't say such faith represents science.


It's a shame that so many people have substituted science as an absolute authority in place of God without having a particularly profound grasp of either. The most fanatical proponents of scientism are often at odds with the actual science of what they talk about, let alone philosophy or history; but then, some religious people don't understand their religion particularly well either.




> My justifications for accepting psi phenomena come from the research done by Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake. I think the evidence has been available and clear in a scientific context for the last hundred years since the time of William James.


I don't know that Dean Radin fellow, but Sheldrake doesn't strike me as a very good scientist. I saw him on the Joe Rogan Podcast a couple of times and his claims were less than credible. He talked about doing that sender receiver card test they were doing at the beginning of Ghostbusters, and he mentioned that the best subject he ever had was his son. What was obviously happening was the same thing that happened in the case of Clever Hans, the horse who did arithmetic. The horse didn't have special mental capacities except for maybe being observant and receptive of it's owner's involuntary cues and body language. The trainer wasn't even aware that he was giving the answers away. A person's child is especially receptive to it's parent's body language as a matter of necessity, which explains that.

Then he had a story about how dogs sense when their owners are coming home. This is a really galling one, when people attribute supernatural qualities to their pets. It's sort of like a displaced hubris. "Well no I'm not psychic but my dog is." Sheldrake leaps past simpler more plausible explanations like the dogs recognizing patterns, routines, or perhaps having a well developed sense of hearing, or smell which would give it advance notice that it's owner was coming home.

He also shared a weird story about trying to project an image to a person in a far off place. The person who was the supposed receiver claimed to get an image of a burned down house or something, which wasn't what the sender was trying to send him, but when they did some digging they found out that a house had once burned down on that spot. So Sheldrake concludes what any rational person would, that his subjects could see backwards in time telepathically over great distances.

I think he might also be the guy who believes that we always know when someone is staring at us. This runs counter to plain sense. I had a friend of mine silently follow me for miles as a joke. He walked a couple of paces behind me the whole way but I was too absorbed in my own thoughts to notice him. Then there are stalkers who hide in people's bushes, peeping toms, snipers, cops who tail people, etc. A quick consideration of anyone's life will probably yield at least one example of a time they were observed and didn't know it.

The one thing he mentioned for psychic phenomena which I can't really poke holes in is the case of a group of people focusing on a number and effecting a random number generator to be less random. I've got no idea what's going on there.

But like I said before, I don't put psychic ability out of the realm of possibility, I just don't think Sheldrake is the man to prove it.




> However, I agree that it goes against my own common sense view of what is humanly possible, but then I wonder why do I think I know what is humanly possible? Mostly my common sense is limited by a bias toward Newtonian determinism where we are each of us individuals bumping against each other like balls on a social billiards table. Intellectually, I know that is outdated, but I find it is not easy to think differently.


That is the challenge isn't it, trying to perceive the world objectively when our minds aren't built for objectivity? Try to straighten them as we might, our thoughts run down the old easy curving paths. Sometimes I wonder what's possible in a universe with quantum physics, or if I'm like a square trying to make sense of a sphere, understanding less than half of what I see. We just don't have the sensory equipment or the processing power to comprehend it all.

----------


## YesNo

> I don't know that Dean Radin fellow, but Sheldrake doesn't strike me as a very good scientist. I saw him on the Joe Rogan Podcast a couple of times and his claims were less than credible. He talked about doing that sender receiver card test they were doing at the beginning of Ghostbusters, and he mentioned that the best subject he ever had was his son. What was obviously happening was the same thing that happened in the case of Clever Hans, the horse who did arithmetic. The horse didn't have special mental capacities except for maybe being observant and receptive of it's owner's involuntary cues and body language. The trainer wasn't even aware that he was giving the answers away. A person's child is especially receptive to it's parent's body language as a matter of necessity, which explains that.
> 
> Then he had a story about how dogs sense when their owners are coming home. This is a really galling one, when people attribute supernatural qualities to their pets. It's sort of like a displaced hubris. "Well no I'm not psychic but my dog is." Sheldrake leaps past simpler more plausible explanations like the dogs recognizing patterns, routines, or perhaps having a well developed sense of hearing, or smell which would give it advance notice that it's owner was coming home.


Here's a video about that dog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA5wAm2c01w

I don't see this as a supernatural quality, but I don't have an explanation. Of course I am looking for an explanation within models that might be faulty. 




> He also shared a weird story about trying to project an image to a person in a far off place. The person who was the supposed receiver claimed to get an image of a burned down house or something, which wasn't what the sender was trying to send him, but when they did some digging they found out that a house had once burned down on that spot. So Sheldrake concludes what any rational person would, that his subjects could see backwards in time telepathically over great distances.


The remote viewing experiments have the problem of being too vague in my view. There is too much subjectivity in what constitutes a successful event. So I agree with you on this. 

That doesn't mean that some people talented in this way can't do such things. And that's my main interest. What can unusually talented people actually do? Can they really levitate, for example? What does that say about gravitation? I don't think any of it is supernatural. It is just the way nature is, if it is possible.




> I think he might also be the guy who believes that we always know when someone is staring at us. This runs counter to plain sense. I had a friend of mine silently follow me for miles as a joke. He walked a couple of paces behind me the whole way but I was too absorbed in my own thoughts to notice him. Then there are stalkers who hide in people's bushes, peeping toms, snipers, cops who tail people, etc. A quick consideration of anyone's life will probably yield at least one example of a time they were observed and didn't know it.


Yes, I recall something similar from him. However, these experiences don't have to happen consistently. They just have to happen enough to reject chance. Some people may be more sensitive to this than others. 

What I find interesting is what this implies about the world. If there were such an influence, then the viewer is projecting something out or disturbing a field that the one being watched can potentially detect if the person is sensitive enough to it. 

It occurs to me that even the concept of "disturbing a field" is just a conceptual model of what reality might be. The models seem to work and so they have use-value until something better comes along.




> The one thing he mentioned for psychic phenomena which I can't really poke holes in is the case of a group of people focusing on a number and effecting a random number generator to be less random. I've got no idea what's going on there.


These are the kind of experiments that I recall Radin having performed. I don't know if he or someone else did those where a random number generator was made less random. I'm off-and-on going through Radin's "Supernormal" where he examines Patanjali's "Yoga Sutras" and attempts to show what science can validate about the unusual powers discussed in the third part of that ancient text.




> But like I said before, I don't put psychic ability out of the realm of possibility, I just don't think Sheldrake is the man to prove it.


I was impressed by Sheldrake's "The Science Delusion". One of his ten points was to question whether physical constants are as constant as a number such as pi, that is to all decimal places. If they weren't constant, just like pi, then the mathematical models of universe would not have the predictive power that we assumed they had. They would be only approximations. We can still use them to a certain number of decimal places. People, including myself, confuse the model with reality, so questioning this aspect of the model is worthwhile. Most people don't even think to consider it.

I suspect "skeptics" are trying to tarnish Sheldrake's reputation in sometimes inappropriate ways. Here is Sheldrake complaining about James Randi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB3SAD-gHTc

----------


## zslsal

Nothing can give meaning to existence. Talking about meaning is logically futile.

----------


## YesNo

> Nothing can give meaning to existence. Talking about meaning is logically futile.


I agree that no "thing" can give meaning to existence. One needs subjectivity to assign meaning and to be able to recognize the meaning. Things, by assumption, do not have subjectivity. 

Consider the meaning of a word. Does a computer know what a word means that has been encoded as some text on its hard drive? I don't think so, no matter how well it is able to manipulate the projection of that meaning onto a text. Just because a computer can't recognize or assign meaning says nothing about our abilities. Because of our subjectivity, we aren't reducible to computers.

When someone says something is "logically" this or that, I assume there is an underlying logical fallacy going on if human experience shows the opposite to be true. For example, do we have free will? We experience enough free will for a legal system to assign responsibility to us as intentional agents, but some people who take mathematical determinism too literally try to logically claim we do not have free will. Which should I believe, the empirical evidence or questionable metaphysics? I go with the empirical evidence and assume there is a fallacy in the metaphysics that I may or may not choose to try to uncover.

----------


## YALASH

> .....Anyway, I'd like to know why religious people think that religion gives meaning to their life and I'd like to hear some non-circular arguments.


Peace be on you.
According to my understating through Ahmadiyya-Islam, The purpose of life is to worship God, and this worship should be such that one should be good to creature of God too. Then expect good place in Hereafter. 


If you notice, Salaat, the Islamic Prayers [5 daily, and some extra], all begin with declaration of greatness of God, and end with words "assalamo aliakum wa rahmatullah" while the person turns face to right and then left uttering these words. Their meaning: assalamo (peace) aliakum (be on you) wa (and) rahmatullah (mercy of Allah). The lesson is come back from the Presence / Court / Threshold of Lord with gift of peace for humanity whether rightest or leftist to your creed.


Unfortunately, many pray but create unrest after offering Salaat. This is promised weakness. The reforms are underway. But it is different subject.

----------


## YesNo

That's a nice prayer, YALASH. I also liked how your religion views hell as a temporary hospital stay. Apparently change can occur in the afterlife.

----------


## tblue818

> Believers often say that you need religion because life would be pointless otherwise. But how exactly does religion give meaning to life? Looking at the 'great' monotheistic religions (I don't know enough about the others) it seems that they mainly tell people _how_ to live their lives, i.e. they give them rules about family life, how to worship God etc. But that's not really what I would call 'meaning' or 'purpose'. E.g. the purpose of a pair of scissors is to cut things, i.e. an action outside the scissors themselves. We wouldn't normally say that the purpose of scissors is to have two blades and a handle with two holes for stickin your finers in and a screw in the middle for the blades to open etc (= rules for a good pair of scissors). Whereas rules for a 'religious' life do not refer to any purpose outside life itself... unless maybe you assume that sticking to those rules will make people happy, thus turning their life from a mere life into a happy one. But I don't remember the Bible etc. promising anyone happiness.
> 
> So is it supposed to be the promise of a life after death that gives 'meaning' to this life?
> Other arguments seem kind of circular to me, e.g. 'The purpose of life is to please God.' So what?
> Anyway, I'd like to know why religious people think that religion gives meaning to their life and I'd like to hear some non-circular arguments.



For me, it wasn't so much as "Man's Search for Meaning" (Frankl), but my search for the *purpose* of living. What was the Point of life? Why was I born in the first place? Into a world where the only time I could be 'happy' was if I blocked out the utter misery of so many - and wait to see if the unspeakable miseries would someday show up in my life.

I became an agnostic at 16, which lasted until I was 45 when 'misery peaked'. Whenever I got close to suicide, a particular thought would always show up, "If you commit suicide, you are guaranteed to *never* discover the Point to being here." That thought kept me trudging along, more than once. Where to look for the Answer? I had rejected the Rolodex of beliefs that one could adopt. I wanted to Know, for myself.

Turned out that St. Paul holds the keys to the Point (1 Cor. 15:12-19). So many religious people speak of that passage as referring to the physical death and resurrection of Jesus. What the passage actually speaks of is the Resurrection *within each of us*. The Experience of Truth Itself.

There is nothing "narrow" about a path that only requires 'believing'.

P.S. One of the great insights into agnosticism, for me, was coming to see that the definition was: "I could no longer believe in the Goodness of God."

----------

