I was watching this with an open mind and all that could come to mind was that they were trying a mild form of hypnotism, watch it again and pay close attention to the tones of voices and the repitition and the flashing colours. I picked this in about the first minute! Still made good viewing though.
shareIN a way you are right. The film is designed to lower resistane to the information it presents by presenting it in such a way that it sounds authoritative, so you hear the Films Narrator speaking wiht confidence. However, its such a low tone, and so soothing a manner, that its almost comforting, lulling.
The bright lights, display of images, and flashign lights also wrk on our emotion, and convey a sense of dread and urgency, and prime us for the later information. I think the fist 15 Minuets of this is just darkness and odd, repetitive atonal Music, and a Monolouge, followed by scary music and frighting images. These Images conbvey the sense of the basic idea, such as replacign Logic and Reason and Facts with blind devotion to Patriotism and Religion, and how much is wrong with the world with wars and faminea and death and destruction, only to lead into the actual narration startign with "This is the Sun", and then it talks about Christianity. By this time you are already primed emotionally, and the bright lights and music has lowered your resistance to the ideas beign presented.
Its pretty standard for Propaganda to do this though.
I guess mixing it up with stories of war, blood, sacrifice, hatred, betrayal, magic, supernatural etc. was an older way to do the same. Times have changed certainly.
my voting history
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=45098238
Med, the whole "religion is all make beleive and use to contro l the masses" refrain is itself Propaganda. its jsta cclaim thats seen as true becaue its repeated. Its tiresome now though and never really supported.
shareIn my opinion, religion is not all make believe. Its almost impossible create a pure fantasy, and even if one were able to write one, I don't think he will enjoy a great readership.
also as far as repetition as a mean of popularizing an idea is concerned, probably I'll have to agree with you on that one, but then again...Right back at you!
my voting history
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=45098238
Med, one thing I always seem to anger people on is when I say everyone has a Religion. Yes I know, ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION! I get that a lot, but then again, Theism is not a Religion either.
But both can be integral to a Religion, which is the point.
Religion is not some separate thing that some people have and others lack, its simply a term for the basic beliefs we have about our existence. Before the 1800’s no one tried to separate the Religious from the Secular as if they were separate, and in reality they aren’t. A Philosophy that covers the same ground as Religion and which serves the same function as Religion is a Religion itself, no matter how often the adherent insist its not, because nothing really distinguishes it from being a Religion.
That’s why Religion can’t really die, Religion is ultimately just our outlook on life, our basic beliefs about our existence. You can convert it from one to another, but you can never really get rid of it.
Which leads me to ask why your Religion should be seen as reality and others not? Especially as you conceded its not all Fantasy. Religious systems got started by people observing their real world and explaining it, an why do you think everyone else must have gotten everything wrong and only you and others who agree with you managed to come out ahead?
I find the whole of the Modern Atheist movement to be really Hypocritical. It tries to create Freethought by making sure everyone agrees with it, and to end Intolerance by being Intolerant, and asks us to question everything but refuses to allow its own tenets to be questioned.
I really wish your views were the views of the majority but unfortunately that is not the case.
Each and every religion (or so called set of belief about our existence and purpose!) has shed its share of blood and exploited the downtrodden. Be it Christianity after its recognition as the state religion by Constantinople 1 (in form of gradual transformation, absorption or suppression of pagan religions much before the 1800's as you talked of), or attempts of religious conversion of the downtrodden worldwide by christian missionaries (which in my opinion, is not as bad thing to do as people often blame it to be, but it does contradict your view of religion being only a set of belief about our existence, as it seems to work only with the poorest of the poor). Such a forced change of view is not that different from a politician paying money to the poor in lieu of their votes.
Much before 1800's, Muslim Leaders (Mughals and Sultanate) were (at least some) looting and destroying Hindu temples, forcing conversions (directly and indirectly). All this (compounded by the divide and rule policy adopted by the British) created a rift in the hearts of people which is still being used and exploited by the political and religious leaders.
So called "High class" Hindus, were forcing the lower castes to live in conditions worse than animals. This continuing (at least to some extent) practice is being exploited till this date by political leaders to their advantage.
All this being done in the name of 'God'. Why? Because the only way people will follow a set pattern of life ('religion' as you call it) is if 'God- The Savior' patronizes it.
So in nut shell, each religion may have had its humble beginnings but sooner or later myths and mythology gets mixed in.The real message is lost somewhere in the midst of false commitments and hopes, baseless rituals and taboos. Ultimately everything falls pray to human greed (or human nature as I would prefer to call it). This idea might appear to be discomforting to many theists but unfortunately it is not avoidable unless we move God out of the equation.
Will this end all the world conflict?? Probably no. But at least we will have something real to fight in the name of. Something still achievable. Something more universal in its appeal than some God.
Going by your definition of religion, you might call me a religious person but unlike a theist I am not committed to one set of beliefs.
my voting history
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=45098238
Med-
I really wish your views were the views of the majority but unfortunately that is not the case.
Each and every religion (or so called set of belief about our existence and purpose!) has shed its share of blood and exploited the downtrodden.
Be it Christianity after its recognition as the state religion by Constantinople 1
(in form of gradual transformation, absorption or suppression of pagan religions much before the 1800's as you talked of),
or attempts of religious conversion of the downtrodden worldwide by christian missionaries (which in my opinion, is not as bad thing to do as people often blame it to be, but it does contradict your view of religion being only a set of belief about our existence, as it seems to work only with the poorest of the poor).
Such a forced change of view is not that different from a politician paying money to the poor in lieu of their votes.
Much before 1800's, Muslim Leaders (Mughals and Sultanate) were (at least some) looting and destroying Hindu temples, forcing conversions (directly and indirectly). All this (compounded by the divide and rule policy adopted by the British) created a rift in the hearts of people which is still being used and exploited by the political and religious leaders.
So called "High class" Hindus, were forcing the lower castes to live in conditions worse than animals. This continuing (at least to some extent) practice is being exploited till this date by political leaders to their advantage.
All this being done in the name of 'God'. Why? Because the only way people will follow a set pattern of life ('religion' as you call it) is if 'God- The Savior' patronizes it.
So in nut shell, each religion may have had its humble beginnings but sooner or later myths and mythology gets mixed in.The real message is lost somewhere in the midst of false commitments and hopes, baseless rituals and taboos.
Ultimately everything falls pray to human greed (or human nature as I would prefer to call it). This idea might appear to be discomforting to many theists but unfortunately it is not avoidable unless we move God out of the equation.
Will this end all the world conflict?? Probably no. But at least we will have something real to fight in the name of. Something still achievable. Something more universal in its appeal than some God.
Going by your definition of religion, you might call me a religious person but unlike a theist I am not committed to one set of beliefs.
The Majority is seldom right about anything.
I do not make these statements lightly, and not being in the Majority doesn’t make me wrong.
But they also have much good, which is utterly ignored. And again, the “Nonreligious” beliefs people like you hold to have shed far more blood with far less good.
If you want to claim otherwise, find some real source for this aside from Gibbons or Hislop or Massey to show it.
Except that Wealthy people also convert to Christianity. EG, Paul McCarthy has converted, and he was a former Beetle, and I don’t’ think he classifies as “The poorest of the Poor”. C. S. Lewis was a Famous Convert to, and while not as Wealthy as McCarthy, certainly he wasn’t living in Poverty. Jane Fonda also converted to it, as did Oscar Wilde, and G.K. Chesterton.
The Missionaries convert those poor people to a way of believing things about their existence, its still ultimately learned and taught.
the whole idea that its all Mythology and Arbitrary Rules shows a great Ignorance of what Religion is.You have no evidence for this other than a repeated claim.
How does removing God form the Equation eliminate Greed from Human Nature?
Democracy? That’s an abstract Political ideology which can easily be rejected. Reason? Then we will endlessly fight over what is and is not Rational. Science? We’ve seen disarrangement's in that as well. I’m afraid that the “Something Real” will still not be as real as you think.Worse, what if God does exist?
mED-
The Majority is seldom right about anything.
I do not make these statements lightly, and not being in the Majority doesn’t make me wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Because if that were the case , atheist would have lost it way back.
But that's not the point. We are not discussing you. We are discussing the majority here. Wrong or right, majority rules.
And in a way all I am asking you to do, is question the majority rule. Nothing more and nothing less.
You mean to say there can be no charity without 'God' concept?
Surely a lot of good has often come out of religion, but surely we can do all that without The God concept. That a lot of bad could have been avoided which is done in the name of god or religious belief.
As far as your accusation about atheist being nonreligious militants,
I am sure the people you meant was 'anti-religious' religious people. what do atheist have at stake to fight about. only a foolish will fight over nothing.
the objective of me discussing this with you is not the change in your belief system, but merely an acknowledgment of a non-popular (yet feasible) alternative.
Whether you believe in what I say or not, doesn't really bother me. its when so called religious people like you act on their unyielding beliefs and go on questioning, changing, humiliating and hurting belief of people with views slightly different than your own.
What makes you believe christian way of life is any better than those of tribal in rural India. why does it need to be changed?
I might give you a thousand, and you may dismiss all of them as baseless. I guess there is no point arguing that. As evident by our earlier discussions elsewhere, you choose to believe sources you feel comfortable with.
Two third of all Christians in India belong to backward classes. Its a fact not, not open for discussion. Although I am not against religious conversions or even the ways they adopt in such effect, I am inclined to think that its nothing more than taking advantage ( in either direction ).
whats your take on famous Christians adopting other religions?
How can belief in god be a teaching and learning process??
Isn't everything that falls in genre of education has to be evidence based?
Its like somebody trying to learn, Why English classical music is better than Indian. Why do I have to commit to one when I can enjoy either without really committing to one. I am comparing it to music, as I find one of the very few real things that can be compared to god, in its perception and effect (both act in a very personal way). Mind you I am not upgrading the importance of music, I am just downgrading 'God' concept.
Why exactly do you think people chose to believe differently?
Does my way of living really change when I convert to a different religion?
What changes is only the entity I should cling my hopes to. And that in effect is the only thing different religions have to offer.
No it doesn't, but then again I don't believe in sanctity of human life. I take it at its face value. I consider greed and lies to be as integral part of normal human behavior as are kindness and truth. There are reasons for either of them hidden in our evolution.
Removing god from the equation only eliminates harmful grouping based on an unproven grounds. putting god in there somehow validates everything.
there are far more serious problems worth to fight for, keeping limited resources we have in mind. why create more boundaries than we already have over nothing (or I should say anything unproven).
Being an atheist doesn't mean mean that we are any nearer to the truth than you are. but at-least we are open to alternatives.
Questioning science is like questioning reasoning. disagreements in science is what makes it so special. The only places we don't hear about disagreements are children story books, holy texts, constitutions, and world religious and political leaders. Everything presented in there is with full conviction and 100 % guarantee.
Are you saying (keeping other factors common) not believing in god is a sin?
Yet you claim that I am not followign the Majoriy already, so what makes you think that I am in one regard and not another?
Ultimatly Majority doenst rule in matters of Truth though, only Reality does.
This is what I endeavour to discuss, not Majorital Opinion.
No, but I will say this. Religion is not the same thing as Theism. Religion is not "Beleif in a god". This is why I also say that Athrism is not a Lakc of Religion, and all Atheits are really Religious.
Its not "the name of god" its "The name of God". Grammaticlaly you used it as a name. That said, a lot of bad has come ut of the name of Democracy, or out of the name of Freedom. Neither of which seem condemnd by you.
If there is nohgin intrinsic to beleiv ein God that produes bad things moreso than good, then yru wghole argument is moot. Peopel can kill in the name of Rocks if they want to, it neiher makes Rocks not real nor evil.
In case you had not noticed, there are plenty of Ahtietss who do, in fact, fight "Religion" COnstantly. EG, Richard Dawkins and Dan Barker.Also, loads of Ahtiests have killed "Religious people" int he name of promotign Athiesm. Mao killed anyone who daed beleiv ein a god, so did Pol Pot, so did Stalin.
Modern-Day Ahteits don't simply lack beleif in a god, they have in plac of a belif system that centres aroudn God a beleif system that centres around a Mateiral world in which God does not exist. Itd as much a positiv beleif system as any Religion is. It snot merley a lakc of beleif, but the acceptance of an alternative beleif. It is, in fact, a Religion inand of itself.
But, we were really discussing Zeitgeist, weren't we?
But your premise still holds to be flawed because one can find others who have converted who are not, in fact, poor. That said, justbecause Christinity appeals to the lowr castes in India doens't mean they are beign exploited. A large part of why this is so is becauseit offersthem a better wya of life and Equality.
Techniclaly no. However I will say that the claim that "Religion" is "Base don Faith" and deifnign Faith as beleif withotu evidence is wrong.
What type of Music is superior is subjectuive preferance, the existance of God is not subjective prefrance.
Either God is real, or God is not Real.
With 6 Billion peopel on the planet, I cna't feasabley answer that as it snot the same for everyone.
EG, If I am a hard drinking womaniser and Ateist, then decide over time God is real and Christianity is True, I can still be a hard drinkign womaniser if I just dont bother with devotion.
Not all Religions worhsi a god
But, Greed is part of Human Naturein Christianity too, and Ilsam, and Hinduism... so what?
Can you rpove beleif in God does nessisairly create boundaries?
I see no evidence dor either the propisition that peopel who beleive in God are closed off to alternatives, nor the propisition that Atheists are Open minded.
Uhm... you hear abotu disagreements in Holy Texts. EG, the Bile records a confrontation between Paul and Peter int he New Testament, and how Moses had to argue withthe peopel of Israel, and how David and Saul weren't exaclty fond of each other...
COnstitutions are codes of Lw, there ad betternot be contention, thogh there is contention over what they contain.
Religious Leaders do often disagree wiht other Religiosu Leadrs, even those in their own Religion.
Yoru claim is a fantasy.
Even Childrens Books have disagreements in them.
Its not "the name of god" its "The name of God". Grammaticlaly you used it as a name.
Its beleif in God. Cap G. You used it as a name. The convention fo keepign it in lower case is an irritatign one, as its grammaticlaly ncorect
Its God Capital G. Atiests began to spell it in lower case to shwo off thie r"Unbeleif" but tis Childish and innaccurate.
Not capitalising a name is grammaticlaly incorrect, and God is a name if used as such, as you just did.
Med-
Yet you claim that I am not followign the Majoriy already, so what makes you think that I am in one regard and not another?
Ultimatly Majority doenst rule in matters of Truth though, only Reality does.
This is what I endeavour to discuss, not Majorital Opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you think religion and God is the way to go about it? Because already you have shown your dismissive attitude about science and its use in deciphering truth and reality?
That still didn't answer my question.
Anyway, although I agree that religion is not same as theism but I hope you will agree that its kind of impossible to separate the two. for example Buddha explicitly rejects a creator, denies endorsing any views on creation and states that questions on the origin of the world are worthless and yet millions of people regard Buddha as some sort of supreme being capable of putting you off your difficulties. People expect things that he never committed to in the first place.
We are talking about majority here.
Democracy may not be a perfect system, but it definitely has its uses. you may not realize that sitting in your ac rooms with big salaries and capitalistic lifestyle, but its uses are much more easier to see in the developing countries with mixed type of economy, wide gaps in socio-economic status of people and social problems like poverty, illiteracy, society with divisions based on cast, community and religion.
As far as people killing in the name of rocks, you might be surprised to hear this but that sort of thing does happen in India, except that rocks are worshiped as gods in form of idols. Such is the power of god concept.
Again we are talking majority here.
Mao killed everyone who dared believe in god???
isnt that a bit of an overstatement. yes he did kill the religious leaders, but they weren't his only targets. Landlords, rich peasants, former members of the nationalist regime, rightists, counter-revolutionaries and the families of such individuals too died in the greatest numbers.
What do you have to say for Hitler. In Mein Kampf and later in a speech at the Reichstag he said, "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Oh, but he was just using that for rhetorical purposes, he didn’t actually believe it, right? Wrong, he’s also said, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
and Richard Dawkins for me is not an atheist as he claims to be, I find him more of a God-hater rather that a nonbeliever.
And what exactly is that alternative belief are you talking about?? as is your style of putting things, I will broaden definition of a "true atheist" as anyone who is open to alternative belief systems in view of limited capabilities of those already existing.
WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU THINK ATHEISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN?
AND WHY IS IT BAD?
WHAT "RULES" OF ATHEISM ARE YOU SO AGAINST?
DO YOU ACTUALLY FIND NON-CELEBRITY ATHEISTS ACTING AGAINST RELIGIOUS PEOPLE?
Because I find many religious people acting weirdly due to their system of beliefs. Do you know how difficult it is for an Indian Muslim to get a US visa?
or how difficult is it for him to rent a house in India itself? do you know its not uncommon for a family to inquire about a person's cast before they rent him a house? Is it difficult to see how people start behaving differently to Muslims in US past 9/11?
And don't give me that religion is different from theism crap again as its not possible to separate the two. One validates the other.
really?? if that were the case you would not have started discussing with me on this thread. (please refer to the your second message in this thread, you will notice two things. firstly I was not responding to you. and secondly i was merely trying to compare tactics used in the zeitgeist and 'holy' texts all over the world.) Its you only who deviated me from the point of discussion into this futile zone. and then you talk about tolerance?!!!
And converting them to Christianity is the only way to do that because...?
and the evidence is.....?
So you do acknowledge the other possibility but can't seem to stand other people believing in it??!!
That's the weirdness and problem with it. You don't have to answer for all 6 billion, a mere few answer (as many as religions) claim to satisfy all of them.
Just how very childish use of an example there. If that is the way you see atheists, then you my friend are in a very sorry state of affairs.
And what if I am not the type of atheist (or a Hindu for that matter) you believe me to be, let us say I am as regular as a regular religious person, what changes should I expect if I convert to Christianity??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all Religions worhsi a god
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To name a few....?
each claims it to be a sin, and yet it doesn't seem to have any effect on anyone.
Yes, belief in different Gods, as proposed by different religions does create boundaries. AND THERE IS MORE THAN AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SHOW IT.
There are no disagreements in the commitments made to the masses in either one of them.
It amazes me when you talk of tolerance. you can't even stand me writing God as 'god' (which was unintentional, and i am sure even you realize this) and look at this as an attempt to showoff my disbelief. how very paranoid of you.
This is why I dislike the Intellecual Model used by Modern-DFay Atheism. There is a conflcit between Science and Religion, and somehow you must pick one or the other.
Thats just barmy.
No I did not dismiss Science, I simply said that somethign is going to be True whether or nto rhe Majority accepts it, which is not the ame thing as saying "I choose Religion over Science".
While we're on te topic, I dont' think Religion and Science are at ods, and further, don't see Religion as somethign one can avoid.
Religion is ismply out collective beleifs about our existance,and in a way many o the tenets of Rekigious Beleifs are the result of earlier Scientific discovery, just as many modern Scienific Theories could eaisly be classified as Religiosu Tenets as well. EG, Evolution. Many see the divide between Religion and Science as clealry shown int he Creation VS Evolution debate and its brought up a lot by the Atheists to show how bad Religion is, but from a Striclty technical point, as Evolution exolains life on Earth and its meergance, it serves the same purpose as a Creation Myth would. While you smay say that its different because it was ormed by Science, its the same because it still erves as an explanation for how we gort here.
One of the earliest books I had hwne I was studyifn world religions was oen that went through every known Creaion Myth, and it included the Big Bang Theory, which at firts puzzled me. But as the book explained, a Myth is not " a story that is not True", and evn if somehign was prven to be True it can be a Myth if it operates o explain our world in a deeper sense than just fact, or explain one of the basic reasons why we are what we are. The Big Bang Theory, while an accepted Scientific Theory, is still a Religious Myth because it serves the same purpose, it explains Creation to us.
Evolution can be int he same category, and, functionally in the mind of someone who beeives in it, serves the same basic purpsoe as the Creation of Man in Genesis Chapter 2, or the Hindu Vedia's descrining how the gods made man.
Also, it shoudl be noted that beign True doens't make somethjgn not religiosu either
The same happens in Modern Day Ateism, only they elevate Reason to the supreme position, because Modern Atheism is largley influenced by the Enlghtenment which was based aroudn he Supremacy of Reason. I've also seem namy elevate Science to the same level, and soem even speak of Evolution as if it is a force in and of itself capable of makign choices and in need of our veneration. Sure,they will deny it if you direclty confront them wiht it, but read what they write to each other.
The reasonf or this is because its simply a partof the Human COndition, an inbuilt drive to venerate those sorts of powers, the only question is the object of those affections.
EG, I own a Pocket knife and carry it everywhere I go. I use it to open packages, or to cut through small things id need be. Its a tool, and as such is perfeclty normal and mundane and serves a very useful purpose.
But, I coudl also cut someone wiht it. if I positioned it right, I coudl even kill someone wiht it.
But does that make Pocket Knives evil?
Thats why the Bible condemns Idolatry...
Killing has happened in the name of Atheism, explicitly
That said, Hitler wjust used the Creator as a way to drape his ideals into a divine acceptance
The definition of "Atjiest" is "One who rejects the existance of any god". Not "One who is open minded to Alternatives". Befire I am misundertsood, I am not saying Atheists must not be open minded or open to alternatives, but theresno intrinsic aspect of the definition that makes it mandetory. At the sam time, nothign in beleif in God prevents oe from being open to alternativees either.
Theism and Atheism are just propositiosn on a singular question.
Presumption, I never said "its bad" explicitly.[quote]
[quote]Atheists are Religiosu People. And yes, I've visied internet forums, such as IMDb...
.....continued from above....
WHile not all Muslims are Terorrists, peopel tend to catgorise peopel by affiliation.
In some Ahtiest natins, like CHina, its hard fo rout and well known Christains to get Visa's, so what?
Bt that doens't prove that Religion inaand of itself is a problem only prejudice toward those who are different and the dangers of
categorising a whoel group of pepel base don the actiosn of a few.
Moot question. I nevr said it was the Only Way, only that it is a way that is made avilable to them.
The DIctionary. Faith has six definitions, and onlyoen is "Beleif withotu Evidence", and its a fairly new Definition. The word
"Faith" coems fromt he Latin word Fidese, which means "Trust", and this is what Augustine meant when he werote "The CIty
of God".
Faiht is another owrd for Trust or Loyalty, NOT Beleif withotu evidence, and has always meant this. The Bible nevr uses it to
mean Beleif Wihtotu Evidence even in Hebrews wher emany Ahtuists htink "The Bibical Deifnition of Faith" resides.
Its not hwo the Auhtors of the Biblical texts or subswuent writers udnertsood the term, and the same applies to other
Religions.
No it oenst. Peopel are convicned of their beleifs for a variety of reasons.
It wans't meant as a condemnation fo all Athiests. I used the example because Christianity generlaly frwons on Womanising[/quote]
and beign a Drunk, but Atheism inand of itelf has no suhc mechanism. I am not syaign all Athiests are Drunken Womanisers, I
am saykgn that one can be either an Atiest or a Christian and live that way, and all it will take is no Dvotion to CHristiajity to
make tht possible.
Well I dont know you or yoru situation, so, how shoudl I know? There may be little change, or a lot, depending on what type fo
Christainity you join, how devourt you are, and how different the demands the Christin Faith makes on you are form your
current life. Perhaps there will be no CHange.
But, Religion is not sjust about " I am X where I once was Y", and it snot just some package deal in which if one Religion is
true all others are False. Religion is about the Truth of our world, and was developed as Humanity looked at its existance and
sought answers.
So if you ahve alreayd arrived at the szmae basic moral teachigns CHristainity offers, rather than shwo how worrthless
Christianity is, it only shows that you can confirm its teahcigns becuase you have already foudn them True on your own.
Humanism.
Some forms of Buddhism.
Objectivism.
Soem forms of COnfusioanism.
Some forms of Tao.
Raelianism.
Spongs Liberal Christianity.
Neitcheism
This is false. Via Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, or other Religions and their teahcings, peopel have overcome Greed. It can be
conquered whtin oneself by learnign hwo to cotrol or redirect it.
Religiosn simly teach you how, and any do overcodm it by the influence of such Teachings.
Not nessisairly though, and I said Nessiarily.
If peopel can beelive in different gods and still get along, then it is not True that beleif in different gods must by nature create
bounaries which divides society. In most of the Western World Religiosu tolerance exista and this simply is not the case found
in most of the Western World.
WHilw it Can, it doens tmean it Must.
its hard ot take eriosuly someoen who sppells god in lower case
Med-
WHile not all Muslims are Terorrists, peopel tend to catgorise peopel by affiliation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
why is that? Is it humanely possible to be free of prejudice? [/quite]
yes but its very difficult. But anyone can learn to curb their orejudices.
To keep them undr control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some Ahtiest natins, like CHina, its hard fo rout and well known Christains to get Visa's, so what?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if that's true, its a measure to keep a control on leadership and not an anti-religious measure as such. [/quote[
Actuay the two go hand in hand. COmmunist China still encourages Atheism, and operates on State Atheism, with Atheism beign the prefered stte of the peopels beleifs.
And that Athems must link to a Humnistic undertsning.
The CHinese Government are no different formthose you complain about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bt that doens't prove that Religion inaand of itself is a problem only prejudice toward those who are different and the dangers of
categorising a whoel group of pepel base don the actiosn of a few.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]
Probably yes, but if we can stop people from categorizing a fellow human being (by at-least one less way) it will surely have a positive effect on those who are harassed needlessly. Why create more categories than there are already. and that too based on artificial (as of now) boundaries which are inherently difficult to cross.
But you assume that we even can do this by removign Religion. As I've said, and as it seems difficul for you to grasp, no one really lacks Religion. Even if we get rid of "All supernatural beelfis" and everyone embraces Atheism and sheer materialism, you will find Ahtiesic "Ohilosophies that arne't Religions" that divide eopel in exaclty the same ways. Its relaly no different.
Its not even rmeovign one category, and it won't diminish at all the harrassment or Rjection base odn Prejudice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moot question. I nevr said it was the Only Way, only that it is a way that is made avilable to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean to say, they would have turned to Buddhism or Islam if their religious messengers have turned up there first or Hindus had taken better care of their people? Doesn't all this ridicules religion in a way (as a message from God). how is that different from an election campaign?
What I am saying is that peopel beleive what they are ocnvinced of. Groups tend otbe convince dby their culture as much as by a Religous Leader.
But this incldiues Ahtietic beleifs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DIctionary. Faith has six definitions, and onlyoen is "Beleif withotu Evidence", and its a fairly new Definition. The word
"Faith" coems fromt he Latin word Fidese, which means "Trust", and this is what Augustine meant when he werote "The CIty
of God".
Faiht is another owrd for Trust or Loyalty, NOT Beleif withotu evidence, and has always meant this. The Bible nevr uses it to
mean Beleif Wihtotu Evidence even in Hebrews wher emany Ahtuists htink "The Bibical Deifnition of Faith" resides.
Its not hwo the Auhtors of the Biblical texts or subswuent writers udnertsood the term, and the same applies to other
Religions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust and loyalty towards....? And more importantly why?
That will deopend on the COntext. One can have Faith in anyhting, and have ny numbr of Rasons. Liek Trust or Loyalty or COnfidence, the word stand alone doens't really have a focus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No it oenst. Peopel are convicned of their beleifs for a variety of reasons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasons might vary, but belief dont (atleast not as much as reasons). why?
Becuase therre is a finite number of possible explanaitosn and a limied and finite world we live in, perhaps?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It wans't meant as a condemnation fo all Athiests. I used the example because Christianity generlaly frwons on Womanising
and beign a Drunk, but Atheism inand of itelf has no suhc mechanism. I am not syaign all Athiests are Drunken Womanisers, I
am saykgn that one can be either an Atiest or a Christian and live that way, and all it will take is no Dvotion to CHristiajity to
make tht possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That means if i were to study 100 people with Christianity as religion and 100 atheists, I am bound to find more womanizers and drunkards in the latter group. and if I were to improvise on that, there may be a difference between two religious groups too. Unless you are saying atheists in particular tend to be sinners.
why does pursuit of reality and truth need a supernatural road-map?
philosophy is not same as religion.
and even if they are religions and religion is all about basic beliefs we have about our existence and conduct, then why there is an inequalities in terms of number of followers? why do godless religions fall behind by such a wide gap?
That is another huge problem I find with religion. In my opinion greed, lying, hatred are just as integral part of human nature (and other living things) as is truth, brotherhood and love.When predators are near its nest, the Killdeer will feign a wing injury in an attempt to lure the animal away from its young. The Rafflesia flower's aroma mimics the smell of rotting meat that lures insects which pollinate it. plants compete with each other for sunlight and soil, often with 'tragic' consequences.
Lies are simply a highly specific, complex, and language-dependent form of deception, something which exists in nearly every level of nature. to imagine a world without lies is to imagine a world without adaptation - in other words, a world without life.
On the other hand religion expects all people to be true and greed free. although it seems like a good thing but its like a teacher expecting all students to pass with 100 percent marks (with the promise of 'heavens' for those who succeed, and 'hell' for those who fail ). what this does is create false expectations from others and from oneself.
Failed expectations harbor sorrows,anger,jealousy,guilt and fear.
Why create a powerful "can" if you can do without it also.
yes but its very difficult. But anyone can learn to curb their orejudices.
To keep them undr control.
Actuay the two go hand in hand. COmmunist China still encourages Atheism, and operates on State Atheism, with Atheism beign the prefered stte of the peopels beleifs.
And that Athems must link to a Humnistic undertsning.
The CHinese Government are no different formthose you complain about.
But you assume that we even can do this by removign Religion. As I've said, and as it seems difficul for you to grasp, no one really lacks Religion. Even if we get rid of "All supernatural beelfis" and everyone embraces Atheism and sheer materialism, you will find Ahtiesic "Ohilosophies that arne't Religions" that divide eopel in exaclty the same ways. Its relaly no different.
Its not even rmeovign one category, and it won't diminish at all the harrassment or Rjection base odn Prejudice.
What I am saying is that peopel beleive what they are ocnvinced of. Groups tend otbe convince dby their culture as much as by a Religous Leader.
But this incldiues Ahtietic beleifs.
That will deopend on the COntext. One can have Faith in anyhting, and have ny numbr of Rasons. Liek Trust or Loyalty or COnfidence, the word stand alone doens't really have a focus.
Becuase therre is a finite number of possible explanaitosn and a limied and finite world we live in, perhaps?
It was just an example, you ar enow reading way too much into it.
Why do you assume Religion requires the Suprnatural?
I never said it was. However, Religion is a form fo Philosophy, and is clealry defined as such., Any Philosophical System that covers the fundamental nature of our existance is a Relgiion by Definition.
Several Factors eixst for this, includign the age of he Relgions, and relative success in spreadign to new areas, as well as the abikity to convince others of its Truthfulness. If peopel arne't poursuaded, or if what you ar trachign them oens't reflect the Truth hey have exoeurnced or seen, then they wo't go into it.
This only tlls me you haven't relaly dealt iwht MoralPhilosophy in any detail, as not all Religiosn require total Honesty in all cases, and htose that do are argued for succeintly elsewhere.
I think we're suppose to be reaosnable. Relgiiosn generlalyf orbid murdr btu allow you to kill in war or for self defence, or the defence of others, for example.
It snot as Blakc And White and Clear Cut as all that.
You can't do wihout Religiion, though, and tats the point that you keep missing.
Med-
yes but its very difficult. But anyone can learn to curb their orejudices.
To keep them undr control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may have to disagree on that. To me prejudices adaptive mechanisms. They are a reflector of a very basic human tendency to look for and find patterns in randomness. One may learn to curb one (and that too not necessarily always) but its nearly impossible to get rid of them completely.
Non-Christian religions (including Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism), collectively make up about 3.9% to 5.5% of the adult population in USA.
Of the minority religions, Christianity has been particularly noted as one of the fastest growing (especially since the last 200 years) and today may number between 40 million (3%) and 54 million (4%)according to independent surveys, while official estimates suggested that there are only 16 million Christians. Some sources also reported up to 130 million Christians in China.
Mind you, Islam is the worlds fastest growing religion. so don't reach any happy conclusions there.
Then let science be our religion (if you insist I must have one, then let science be it).
Every human on earth is already following it (knowingly or unknowingly) since the beginning of time.
Though truth is not guaranteed there but its pursuit surely is.
it may not be a perfect system, but in my opinion (may be worthless to you) is the best available at hand.
Are you saying religion is all about convincing people? hows that different from an election campaign?
I am asking specifically in context of religion.
and as humans we tend to stick to the easiest and most comforting one. perhaps?
Perhaps...but i still wonder about where that came from.
religious texts all over the world compel me to think that way.
Do you, as a scientific person literally believe everything in your holy texts? i find my religious texts to be particularly difficult to digest (at-least where supernatural elements get mixed in).
moreover one religion contradicts another very often specially in the supernatural territory.
if i were to quote some dictionary definition as a counterargument like you, i will say religion is also defined as
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. belief in divinity
if everybody could see the truth, we wouldn't have ended up with so many religions.
can you say that you have seen the absolute truth??
also a lot of factors you mentioned above a operational factors and absolute truth should not have been affected by them.
you mean to say, one need not be totally honest to be regarded as a religious person.
who is the authority on what is reasonable and whats not? who draws the line if not us?(just hinting towards a man made element in the realm of religion, although for me its all man made specially if you don't count in God as you consider the two to be entirely independent)
One can do without religion but cant do without philosophy of (or for) life.
and there are endless options available there. We all use them all the time irrespective of our religion. Although we fail to realize that as there is no divine yardstick available there.
Prejudice may have emrged form us seeing patterns, but its not the only result
I'm not reahcign any conclusions, I dont really see how those Statistics really discredit what I've said thusfar. The only possible Happy COnclusion is that eprha the persecution of Christaisn in China will end.
Science is limited. Science is simply a Method of inquerry, not an active Philosophy about our existance.
There is still massive disagreement in the Scientific Community abtu all sorts of things, too.
Worse still, subjective matters, such as Morality, can;'t be deterined using Science at all.
So, Science cna;t be anyones Religion.Its merley a method of Inqwuerry, and those thigns peoepl think of as "Science" that are relaly conclusions will still be divergent between people, with dveloped Schools of thought that seperate us.
Whats more, wht can't you follow so,ethign like Christianity or Islam and Sicnece at the same time? I knw the idea is that Science and Relgiion are at odds, but I've never seen real evidence forhtis, and know plenty of peopel in the Sicneces who adhere ot a Traditional Relgiiosu SYstem. EG, I know a Briliant Man who is also a Catholic and who is a Psycologist. I know an equelly Brilliant Muslim Astronomer.
Dothey follow Catholisism and Islam instead of Sicence?
Yoru comment asusmes a distinction which won't exist in the real world.
By this reaosning, then Science doenst lead us to a singular conclusion and the Religions fo the World are Scientificlaly based. Whether right or wrong, tey stem form a need ot understand our world.
THere s stillk sucbh a divwrsity in beleifs that yor comments are simply not tenibke for the peace you want to bring. There wil still be disagreements and so division.
Peace is attained not byu "GIving p Relgiion for Science", its attained by tolerance for diverse beleifs.
Howeve, peopel have to be taught, and convicned of, specific beleif systems.
It differs from an eelction campaing because its not a man runnign fof office saying "VOte for me!" rather is people, usuall sincere people, who simplyu want the Trith of the world known, and who happen to think their bleifs are the Truth.
If it were, then someone teahcign us abotu Eovlution or Relativeity woudl be like an Election Campaing too.
My answer still stands.
What the Religion is, and teaches, determiens hwat they ask you to have Faith in, and why.
No we don't. If this were True no one woudl be Cliniclaly depressd ever, and pessimism woudl not exist, nor woudl Cynissm be able to exist.
Atheism was not the focus, but Ahtiems alone, as in "I don't beleiv ein God", dosnt lead you to NOT be a womanising Drunk.
Yet you exclud from the term "Religion" the writtigns of such men as Bertrand Russel or T.H. Huxley or Peter SInger. My poitn is, Religious beleif is defined in Sociology and in Psycology as our basic fundamental beleif system, our Worldview.
Its not "Beleif in, and reverance of, gods and Supernatural Powers".
You are still fall ing intot he trap of thinking "X is a Relgiion and teahces Y so all Religion teaches Y."
You also exclude thigns that dotn teach Y as beign Religions.
Thats why you miss my point.
One hting I always hated is how pepel take Definition One, and see the Esp. but ignore it, and ausme everythgin after Esp. is a Requirement, so that Religion Requires Creationby a Superhuman Agency or Agencies. It doenst. Esp. means Especially, which only mean s"Of particular note", but it is not a Requirement. Everythign before Esp. is the actual definition, wiht that as an elaboraiton on a common, but not Universal, feature.
The pitn is, those which become Porminant are those which somehow win the most people over.
Everyone, even the most devious of Liars, is a Religious Person, which has been oen fo my central points htis whole time. I do wish you'd figure that out.
But Religion isnt Man Made, its innate, whcuh is my point.
What is the difference between a Relgiion and a Philosophy fo ife that covrs all the same groudn that Relgiion covers and serves the same function by giving soemone an understanding of the world they live in?
But, the optiosna rnet Limitless because we live in a Finite world, whcih si wjy peopel tend ot come up with the same basic ideas over and over again. And again, Religion is not Theism.
Med, I’ve seen this a lot recently, the accusation that someone is a Creationist, followed by saying you shouldn’t take them seriously if they are. But its rather Childish to fall back on that, as its really stupid to use belief in Evolution as a Litmus test of how intelligent or mentally well balanced someone is.
Creationists aren’t all just vapidly stupid or mentally disturbed, just as Evolutionists aren’t all well adjusted and intelligent.
That said, the point you principally seem to miss is that everyone has a Religion because what actually defines a Religion is that it is a set of beliefs about the nature, cause, and purpose of our existence. This is the Dictionary Definite you supplied, and trying to say Religion also involved belief in Supernatural forces or gods of some sort is silly, as the definition doesn’t say this, only that those are common and usual features, something they normally possess, which is not the same thing as exclusive features or requirements.
You also say that without belief in the Supernatural, Religion just becomes a Philosophy. That, to you, is what makes the distinction. The point I am making is that this is no distinction at all. This is especially True since the biggest complaints about Religion rest less on the Theism they all supposedly espouse and more on other factors, such as objection to the Moral Codes found in a specific Religion, and how Religious beliefs are suppose to act as the source for intolerance, prevent us from thinking for ourselves, and present us easy answers to our basic questions so that we no longer try to think freely about those topics and instead just accept the answers we are Told. Supposedly, being Free of Religion would enable is to think for ourselves, get a proper grip of ideas and understand them, and be able to tolerate others, but those who have embraced the “NonReligous Philosophies” of today, such as Humanism, still end up with the same problems they claim are caused by Religion. They are Intolerant of those whose beliefs differ from their own, thy don’t always understand ideas that come to them, they don’t all think for themselves, and instead often acquire their beliefs from diverse Authorities they have read such as Bertrand Russell or T.H. Huxley or Daniel Dennet or, in this case, Peter Joseph and Acharya S…
The Truth is, all of the problems caused by Religion are also caused by the Non-Religious Philosophies about our existence. While I am not saying that anyone who is, ahem, not Religious must be this way, I’ve seen too many people use exactly the same Argument that they clearly acquired from someplace else in order to use to beat their openers and secure their beliefs, that I see no difference between those sorts of arguments and the Christian Apologists they debate.
For example, you did this here with Creationism VS Evolution and how if I am a Creationist I must not be taken seriously in anything I’ve said. The Unquestionable Truth of Evolution is used here to provide evidence between Legitimate intelligence and insane stupid people.’ Its all rather Trite. Disagreement on one issue, even one that one is totally convinced of, doesn’t mean the other party is stupid, much less that they re wrong in all the things they say. If I prove myself an expert on Physics but also Believe in Fairies, should by expertise in Physics, which has been proven, be called into question and all my work discarded? This becomes worse when you ask, “What if Fairies are Real after all?” If they do prove to be Real, then what? Its not really a Valid dismissal, but it does lead into my question of ho the Non-Religious Philosophies really differ from Religion.
Given that the Non-Religious Philosophies do exactly the same thing that Religion does, and exist for the same purpose, namely they provide us with an Intellectual Framework by which e can then understand our world, and interpret the things ewe see and experience, and given the same sorts of things happen, such as people become so attacked to their belief system that they are intolerant of others who disagree, and often never question the basics assumptions given them in their belief systems, one has to wonder why the Non-Religious Philosophies about existence are really fundamentally different from Religion? Is it really just that they do not believe in gods or supernatural Powers? Is that really all that distinguishes them? Because that’s not ultimately what you or anyone who follows Zeitgeist tend to really Complain about, and in the most important way, they are Religions in and of themselves.
I will address the rest later, I am busy as of now.
Med, I’ve seen this a lot recently, the accusation that someone is a Creationist, followed by saying you shouldn’t take them seriously if they are. But its rather Childish to fall back on that, as its really stupid to use belief in Evolution as a Litmus test of how intelligent or mentally well balanced someone is.
Creationists aren’t all just vapidly stupid or mentally disturbed, just as Evolutionists aren’t all well adjusted and intelligent.
That said, the point you principally seem to miss is that everyone has a Religion because what actually defines a Religion is that it is a set of beliefs about the nature, cause, and purpose of our existence.
You also say that without belief in the Supernatural, Religion just becomes a Philosophy. That, to you, is what makes the distinction. The point I am making is that this is no distinction at all. This is especially True since the biggest complaints about Religion rest less on the Theism they all supposedly espouse and more on other factors, such as objection to the Moral Codes found in a specific Religion, and how Religious beliefs are suppose to act as the source for intolerance, prevent us from thinking for ourselves, and present us easy answers to our basic questions so that we no longer try to think freely about those topics and instead just accept the answers we are Told.
Supposedly, being Free of Religion would enable is to think for ourselves, get a proper grip of ideas and understand them, and be able to tolerate others
but those who have embraced the “NonReligous Philosophies” of today, such as Humanism, still end up with the same problems they claim are caused by Religion. They are Intolerant of those whose beliefs differ from their own, thy don’t always understand ideas that come to them, they don’t all think for themselves, and instead often acquire their beliefs from diverse Authorities they have read such as Bertrand Russell or T.H. Huxley or Daniel Dennet or, in this case, Peter Joseph and Acharya S…
The Truth is, all of the problems caused by Religion are also caused by the Non-Religious Philosophies about our existence.
For example, you did this here with Creationism VS Evolution and how if I am a Creationist I must not be taken seriously in anything I’ve said. The Unquestionable Truth of Evolution is used here to provide evidence between Legitimate intelligence and insane stupid people.’ Its all rather Trite. Disagreement on one issue, even one that one is totally convinced of, doesn’t mean the other party is stupid, much less that they re wrong in all the things they say.
If I prove myself an expert on Physics but also Believe in Fairies, should by expertise in Physics, which has been proven, be called into question and all my work discarded? This becomes worse when you ask, “What if Fairies are Real after all?” If they do prove to be Real, then what? Its not really a Valid dismissal, but it does lead into my question of ho the Non-Religious Philosophies really differ from Religion.
Given that the Non-Religious Philosophies do exactly the same thing that Religion does, and exist for the same purpose, namely they provide us with an Intellectual Framework by which e can then understand our world, and interpret the things ewe see and experience, and given the same sorts of things happen, such as people become so attacked to their belief system that they are intolerant of others who disagree, and often never question the basics assumptions given them in their belief systems, one has to wonder why the Non-Religious Philosophies about existence are really fundamentally different from Religion?
Because that’s not ultimately what you or anyone who follows Zeitgeist tend to really Complain about, and in the most important way, they are Religions in and of themselves.
In Light of the last comment, I’ll say Merry Christmas. I have a lot to do tomorrow, so I won’t reply back till after Christmas and possibly the New Year. Happy New year, 2011, if I am not back before!