PDA

View Full Version : The problem with religion



elder999
15th July 2003, 16:29
Quite a few of you have PM’ed me expressing appreciation for my posts, and the views that I have expressed on the PATRIOT Act and other topics. Thanks to all of you-my words can’t express how much your kind words have meant to me.

I argued at length once with Tony Kehoe about religion, though we never really had the argument I was looking for, only one about proof of “god,” or the lack thereof. In a lot of ways, I am in agreement with him about the misery that “religion” has a history of being the cause of, but I think it is crucial to define terms.

The word religion is derived from the Latin word relagare which means “to bind up,” or “to tie down.” Our English word “regulate” comes from the same Latin root. Therefore, it becomes easy to see how religion-organized religion-is basically about social control. One might say that once spirituality moves out of the personal realm and into the tribal or social realm, it becomes religion. This isn’t necessarily good or bad, but it does generally move the focus away from the individual’s relationship to “Spirit,” to the individual conforming to authority. There was a time when I naively believed that most people want to be free, I also thought that if most people saw the truth, they would choose it over the lies that surround them, I, along with many of my friends, believed that if people were truly fee, they’d do the right thing without being coerced by some preacher, priest or politician. was, to put it mildly, terribly wrong. Once the rules were loosened in the 60’s and 70, people just went crazy, and pursued constant ego gratification, instead of any kind of truth. I have now come to see that it might be better for some people to be controlled by rules of religion until they’ve become emotionally mature enough to accept personal responsibility for themselves and their spiritual lives. The same might be said for politics. Many people need Big brother to tell them what to do, to organize their lives. They need this political control over their lives because they haven’t progressed to the point where they do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do. In other words, they don’t feel that they can be trusted with power, therefore they surrender their power to those in authority.

Shall I give you a very scary example?

President Bush was recently giving a speech about terrorism and peace in Israel. He also has held private conferences with Ariel Sharon, and the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas, who quotes Bush as saying:

”God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve this problem in the Middle East.”

If Bush did say this-and other things he has said lead me to believe that he did-I find it terribly disturbing. If it doesn’t prove the dangers of mixing religion and politics, I don’t know what does. They also tell us that bin Laden thinks he is God’s instrument, and that God told him to strike America. The Bible also records this warning from Jesus:

“Beware, because in the future, false prophets will come in my name, and many will be deceived.”

The Christians, who are so pleased with the president and all the fundamentalists surrounding him and creating US policy, might do well to remember that.

Shitoryu Dude
15th July 2003, 16:34
I personally would like to never see another non-atheist in any position of political power again. I find that people who give more than casual thought to religion on a regular basis to be unhinged. The more it occupies their thoughts the less sane they are.

I find the 60's and 70's crazy behavior to be more about challenging traditional morality than about a loss of religion. Many of those same people would tell you that they were believers while they were out causing all sorts of mischief.

Also, atheists typically are more law abiding than others. The stats are out there. Atheists make up the smallest percentage of jail and prison populations, smaller than their percentage of the general population.

:beer:

StanLee
15th July 2003, 16:47
I don't know too much about taoism, shinto or buddistism. But all I have to say is that I do not believe in religion (except from the above) because of the same reasons aaron and harvey stated.

Stan

KhawMengLee
15th July 2003, 17:27
Taoism, Confusionism, Shintoism and Buddhism are all philosophies. Buddha never claimed he was god(nor did jesus for that matter). Many people don't think of it like that today but nevertheless I find a philosophy, like ideas, are more easy to change than beliefs.

bruceb
15th July 2003, 18:11
Wow, Aaron, you almost got it.

Except for the creation of avatar or spritual relief for the toils of the human existence after death, you just about have it.

Harvey, I am sorry you weren't old enough to experience a part of the 60s and 70s, but I was just barely old enough to experience the fading years of those times myself. Between the drugs, sex, and rock/roll, the only real thing of value was learning how to stay our of jail by learning to say no to the drugs and the sex when the laws got tough and the sex got dangerous because of the diseases being passed around.

Maybe because I live in a state where everything is compacted, things seem to happen here on a smaller scale than some places, and it is easier to define the boundarys because of it, but the morality of humanity seems to always win out. Humans, some not all humans, just don't know when to draw the line for morality. It is a sad observation for the human condition, but even with the "Belt Whipping episode" this should be an obvious flaw within the human condition, eh? Yet, how many rules do we need before all of society breaks down because there are, once again, too many rules and not enough freedoms?

Sooner or later some of you are going to break that conditoning you have had for your entire life and see the reason we need religion, and why man created religion. When that happens, you will not lose your faith, but you eill appreciate that faith in the same manner you appreciate your martial training. If you think back to what you thought of martial training before you had any, and what you think about what you know now .... it is lightyears apart from what the average person who knows nothing thinks about what you know now, or show when attacked. The same example applys to religion. People want that strength of body and character they see when someone exhibits the qualitys of religion, or even martial arts, a person would like to see in himself, or herself.

Once you get your absolute truths in order, the whole picture, even if not completely understandable, is resolved enough to bring purpose to the mind and strength to the body..... something Mr. Kehoe would have to admit if he understood how to put his emotions aside from his logic. (shamefull jab, for which I must apologise)

As much as we need Big Brother, we don't need that authority to be absolute. As much as we need religion, we still need to have room to fit our beliefs into a scientific explanation as well as have those thoughts explained in a leap of faith also. The constraints of society have to have flexibility if that society is able to change and grow, elstwise that society will choke itself to death in its own rules. War, revolution, and internal destruction of a society from its core will result.

Why must that happen?

It happens because of humanitys attempt to create an evironment that maintains the public safety, promotes the public welfare, and qualms the effects of forces creating mental turmoil.
Religion becomes the relief valve for all the problems, the unexplainable, the inextricable, the unbelievable thoughts, observations and events we must come to grips with in our lives, and we just don't have the means to do it.

Animals just do what they do to survive, no religion other than nature guids them

Humanity invents religion. Great supreme beings that can come to our cause, teach us lessons, control the uncontrolable, and give us explaination or meaning to things we can't, don't, or won't understand. Evolve that basic thought over millenium upon millenium and here we are today, still wondering about the mysteries of the universe and how our religion will explain the unexplainable or give us peace from the turmoil of thoughts in our minds.

Yeah, we need some kind of social structure, but how much structure before the boundarys are broken, and humanity evolves?

Even Kimpatsu, and you Stan Lee, has the religion of martial arts and science, be it a twisted alcoholic vision of relief, it is still his religion, and we all must respect it as a means of keeping his mind in balance.

(Note: I use Kimpatsu because of his legendary obtuseness to any type of religion. If there was someone more notable, I would use them as an example. And the alcolhol? Keeps us from ruling the world, eh?)

No ... one must subject the cause of religion to the needs of the mind. The mind creates the wants and needs of the psyche, and although there are signals and sensory stimuli from the body, how that information is processed is all in the mind.

Maybe some of the process is diet, chemical balance, lifestyle, and thought process from years of practice, but in examination of the entire human population, without some rules, or Big Brother, the deterrants to act within a given set of morals is less likely to be adhered to in a society with less deterrants. Seems we need to be beaten with a strap once, or twice, in our lifetimes to associate pain with wrongdoing, and pleasure with the proper behavior, I don't know why, but there it is.

Presidents Bush's comments are an example of response to the information he is exposed to and the ability of his position as President of the USA to do something about those events from which the information came from. His morality, although religious in context, may or may not be acted upon is the majority of people allow his actions to occur.

Just like any society, the majority allow actions to occur, and if it is just the opposite for religions, the minority allow actions to not go unchecked or unpunished. The correct phrase should be the moral minority, and not the moral majority when brining religion into the halls of decisions because it is the last ditch effort of decision based upon indecision.

So all I have to say to people who don't believe in religion is, you must be the most religious people I know because you base what you know on what you deny. You have taken the biggest leap of faith of all, in denying that humanity knows what they are talking about.

It does create a problem though?

You all are part of humanity, right?

So you all don't believe humanity knows what they are talking about?

Why should I believe what you are saying if you don't beileve in what you are talking about?

I guess that is why God created the demon alcohol!

Been awhile since I have sung the "Demon Alcohol Song" by the Kinks, you know the live raucaus version?

"There's a sad and woeful story,
about a middleclass executive ...."

Maybe you don't know the words? 1971-1972 was a long time ago....

Oh well, have a flaming shot of 181 Bacardi rum!

Bushi Jon
15th July 2003, 19:06
I think that atheeist are low in the crime arena is because they are a low % of the population. I also believe that Harvard did a study on religon verse atheism and found out that most professed atheist came from a religous back ground and after there 20-30 returned to there previous belief system

Noodles
15th July 2003, 19:19
I believe Harvey mentioned that the percentage of atheists in prison was lower than the percentage in the population.

Where could I see the Harvard study you mentioned? I'd be very interested in reading it.

Thanks,

Cady Goldfield
15th July 2003, 19:25
The "problem with religion" is that people create it and make up rules to go with it... rules that they then claim were dictated to them by (a) god. When someone in power uses those rules as a tool for control, then we need to be concerned and poised for action to keep that power in check.

BTW, Buddhism and Taoism were never intended to be religions. Their origins were as belief systems or philosophies. Siddhartha Gautama and Lao-tsu came up with basic philosophies based on their experiences and perceptions of those experiences and observations.

Later, human beings deified Siddhartha (The Buddha - The Enlightened One), and of course the tales of miracles and levitation and all that good stuff got bigger and more incredible after his death. Lao-tsu didn't get deified mainly because, in fully giving himself over to the tao, walked away from any disciples or students who could elevate him to deity status pre- or posthumously.

Even those who aren't big enough to be stars can be large, almost starlike, gaseous planets like Jupiter (astronomical reference). For example, Morihei Ueshiba wasn't elevated quite to godhood, but some mighty wacky supernatural activities (e.g. dodging bullets) have been attributed to him. Same for Sokaku Takeda (able to disappear and reappear in another place instantly, like Nightcrawler?).

We love legends. Even more, we love to create legends when we are in awe of a person. Humans have a tendancy to deify those whose ideas are inspired way beyond their own. Then religions are based around those "chosen ones," and the rituals and activities shift toward worshipping those individuals rather than focusing on following the lessons, philosophies and theories that the "chosen one" had expounded and followed himself.

That's just the way we are.

Ben Bartlett
15th July 2003, 19:26
Originally posted by BUSHI JON
I think that atheeist are low in the crime arena is because they are a low % of the population. I also believe that Harvard did a study on religon verse atheism and found out that most professed atheist came from a religous back ground and after there 20-30 returned to there previous belief system

It also likely has something to do with the fact that people who consider themselves atheists tend to be well-educated, and to come from the middle-to-upper classes, which would make them much less likely to commit crimes.

Shitoryu Dude
15th July 2003, 19:39
Actually, I was around for the 60's and 70's... :rolleyes:

elder999
15th July 2003, 20:04
I have now come to see that it might be better for some people to be controlled by rules of religion until they’ve become emotionally mature enough to accept personal responsibility for themselves and their spiritual lives. The same might be said for politics. Many people need Big brother to tell them what to do, to organize their lives. They need this political control over their lives because they haven’t progressed to the point where they do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do. In other words, they don’t feel that they can be trusted with power, therefore they surrender their power to those in authority.


I have no problem with my religion, nor should anyone else.

It's personal, and-with the exception of how I treat others (generally, the way I would want to be treated)-I don't base my professional or social conduct upon it, or have to, or try to impose its standards upon anyone else.

I also don't base my political conduct upon it, or try to impose it politically-as an example, while I find abortion morally repugnant, I am definitely pro-choice.Hell, it's not really my choice, anyway, is it? If I were a physician, I would not perform abortions, but that would be as far as it went; I certainly wouldn't try to dissuade anyone based upon my beliefs......

Bushi Jon
15th July 2003, 20:15
You can go on line and search there data base or if you know someone at Harvard they should be able to get you into the phyc files. The study was done in the late 80s I think the professors name was Higgambaugh(I think). Not shure read the article when visiting a buddy of mine up at law school.I will give him a call to see if he can remember the date

aemon_
15th July 2003, 20:33
not to be too rude, but,

cliffs notes anyone?

later

bruceb
15th July 2003, 22:34
I am sorry to differ with you Harvey, but if you were born in 1963, even if you were the child of a hippie couple, you wouldn't have been able to interact until age 17-18, and that would have been 1980-1981, right?

You are a child of the 1980s-1990s.

Of course now that you are forty, you are one of the older generation, the establishment, so I guess a little brain fog is acceptable.

Remember to fill your pill box so you don't forget your meds ...


Welcome to old age, pal.

Might as well get your seat in the church ready, unless you want to come sing in the choir? You just have to decide which religion fits you, and how you want to practice that religion. Be it the elbow bender at the bar, or the penitent man praying in church, we all have some religion that fits our life style.

I kind of like the Catholics. Sin all week, and then be forgiven on Sunday or whenever you go to confession. Now there is an Irony of morality.

Shitoryu Dude
15th July 2003, 22:40
Bruce, you are an idiot. I was quite aware of what was going on around me from a young age. Just because you didn't become sentient until you were in your 20's is no reflection upon the rest of us.

I also read and study history. Being 40 and having friends are both older and younger than myslef (not caretakers in white uniforms) gives me perspective.

The only "fog" around here is the drug-induced one between your ears.

:beer:

adroitjimon
16th July 2003, 01:21
If I may be so bold as to add my particularly unique perspective.

It was within the first week of school when I was in kindergarten
there was a class inquiry and the subject matter was as such

what do you want to be when you grow up? We live in America
so any thing you can dream of you have the ability to bring it to
fruition,(or something to that affect)...
the rest of the class came up with the usual responses but when
it came down to the what do you want to be Mr. Williamson?
I simply responded with "God"...

Imagine the faces of my teachers when I gave my interjection...
The first thing said was "You cant be God"and I was like
"But you said I could"...
that's when the therapy started...and it all boils down to
Familial attention reverted to places that didn't neccesarily
reflect my sense of need... I've got to go for now but more on
the topic later...cheers

elder999
16th July 2003, 01:24
This nutball is another example.....


NEW YORK (AFP) - Prominent US televangelist Pat Robertson launched a "prayer offensive" against the Supreme Court, urging his supporters to pray for the removal of three sitting justices.

"Would you join with me and many others in crying out to our Lord to change the Court?" Robertson asked viewers of his Christian Broadcasting Network.

Robertson and other prominent members of the religious right have condemned the recent Supreme Court ruling, decriminalising gay sex between consenting adults.

They argue that the decision opens the door to bigamy, legalized prostitution, and even incest.

"No culture has ever endured which has turned openly to homosexuality," said Robertson, who described the nine-member Supreme Court as a "non-elected oligarchy" capable of changing the moral fabric of the nation.


How about this, Pat?

No culture has ever endured.

Wotta nut!:rolleyes:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030715/ts_alt_afp/us_justice_prayer_030715181538

Vapour
16th July 2003, 02:13
Oops, repost. sorry.

Shitoryu Dude
16th July 2003, 03:53
Pat Robertson is an unmitigated, money-grubbing fool. His knowledge of history is also severely lacking.

What amazes me is that anyone takes him seriously. I have more respect for a pile of dog poo that some self-important televangelist.

:beer:

adroitjimon
16th July 2003, 04:32
The problem with religion is this;

Religion is terrorism that is considered acceptable because the
ignorant subject to belief are considered ignorant much like cattle
without regard to thier individual needs...but the gullable
controlled by this form of dictoctracy(tm)are led to believe
that if they don't concent there are dire concequences to be
realized...Isn't that terrorism? Taking advantage of the weak...

TenguAteMyPuppy
16th July 2003, 05:13
The problem with religion: IT'S RELIGION!

Daishi
16th July 2003, 06:42
So all I have to say to people who don't believe in religion is, you must be the most religious people I know because you base what you know on what you deny. You have taken the biggest leap of faith of all, in denying that humanity knows what they are talking about.

It does create a problem though?

You all are part of humanity, right?

So you all don't believe humanity knows what they are talking about?


Forgive me for dragging this back up, but Bruce, didn't humanity also know that the world was flat, or that the sun orbited the earth?

Back to the topic at hand. Religion, on a totally personal level, is something I can understand. I'm certainly not religous on any level, but I can see how one might sleep better at night knowing God was watching over etc. Religion, however, on an organized level, IMO, over time degenerates or transforms into a rigid, stark, or fanatic organization. I'm not saying that religion is responsible for this, I think the causes are endemic in that population, but it is a reflection of it.

Dale Heisler

adroitjimon
16th July 2003, 07:46
Science proved circumnavigation as well as solar energy...
but still according to scientific evolution ie; truth...
God still maintains the ability to escape the reality of
humanity because the reality of the condition is all information
regarding facts are historically unreliable and are also
fabrications designed to ease human suffering and discontentment
in disguize as a wolf in the sheeps clothing seeking to devour
those with a mind that subjects them to victimization...

In my Utopia God would be real and Angels would sing me to sleep
but Utopia is a dream much in the same way as world peace is an
after thought of world domination...cheers
:D :eek:

StanLee
16th July 2003, 08:26
Erm, sorry everyone with the mistake with the buddistism thing. The point I was trying to make was that my impression of most (or all) religions are that they all talk fighting those who oppose their beliefs.

Also, I don't believe in religion because it was forced upon me from an early age. So as soon as I was allowed to do what I want, I turned my back to it.

Yes bruce, you are very correct that it is like our MA training. We elevate our founders to a god like status and regiously follow his ideas and teachings. But how many MAists would get into a fight or group together to start a "MA war" just because the other group is studying a different MA.

You also have to neglect the "dojo bashing" from the last comment.

Hope I make sense as my religion thing is mostly a gut feeling.

Stan

Iain
16th July 2003, 09:16
I consider myself religious (and Christian), though not of any particular persuasion. Before anyone starts on me, I'm reasonably well read as to the nature of both historical and contemporary judeo-christian beliefs both mainstream and otherwise. Religion is simply a medium for self expression. If you're a nasty little jackass, then your belief system will reflect that. If you're a decent person, then your belief system -and subsequently the way you treat others- will adjust accordingly. People the world over adhere to violent and reprehensible dogmas; be they religious (judeo-christian or otherwise) or secular in nature. Nasty people, lazy people, and stupid people would find a way to justify their actions or circumstances regardless of the presence of God.

The only real lasting imprint that Christianity has left on the western world is our tendency towards a linear as opposed to cyclical mindset when looking at the world. Westerners tend to think along a continuum with certain actions leading to a definite outcome. This is clearly some kind of deeply ingrained cultural throw back from early judaeism, as it is one of the first religions to express a complete and concrete eschatology.

Bushi Jon
16th July 2003, 14:57
There was a statement about Dojo bashing and Ma's fighting correct me if I am wrong but didnt early schools take each other on in bare knuckle contest? Religon is man made spirituality is God made how you decide to express yourself is choice!

Son of Thunder
16th July 2003, 17:02
The problem with religion...

is that some people think that they can summarize the characteristics of a social phenomenon that has existed for millenia in every human society on Earth in a single post on an internet discussion board. :D

Son of Thunder
16th July 2003, 17:28
Originally posted by Noodles
Where could I see the Harvard study you mentioned? I'd be very interested in reading it.

I wasn't able to find the exact article John mentioned, but an article in the Winter 1999 Psychoanalytic Psychology ("Religion and the adolescent: A psychodynamic perspective" by Emmanuel Rice) connects the development of atheistic ideology to adolescent rebellion (like Erickson's description of an adolescent's "negative identity"). I dislike psychodynamic psychology, myself (awfully hard to do scientific research), but that's the best I could provide from the psychological research literature.

aemon_
16th July 2003, 17:59
Originally posted by Son of Thunder
The problem with religion...

is that some people think that they can summarize the characteristics of a social phenomenon that has existed for millenia in every human society on Earth in a single post on an internet discussion board. :D
yes, i agree with you.

i am a member of several message boards, and i have never seen any good come from posting about religion. you are just asking for a flame war.

later

Daishi
16th July 2003, 18:47
you are just asking for a flame war.


True, but a very amusing flame war none the less. Everyone gets to take the regurgitated comments and arguements out of the closet and throw them at each other. Its fun.


Dale Heisler

Cady Goldfield
16th July 2003, 18:51
There's a much better flame war to be had by posting about gun control.

bruceb
16th July 2003, 22:36
The world is flat, for a limited area, maybe a couple a hundred feet or so, but in reality, not so. In fact the world is not really round, it is somewhat round, but not exactly.

Hmmmm..

I guess telling an atheist he/ she is right, is like shaking the hand of a politician, ya think that is what you wanted, but all you wanted was for them to go away ....

Maybe a few minor changes happen, but everything is moving as slowly as a slow boat to China, society only changes when it suits society. It is all so much panacea for the minor aches and pains, with just enough soothing talk to make the medicine go down.

I thing that all this talk about religion is like talking about flat earth / round earth, isn't it? Depends on where you are standing and what you see?

Now, if I could climb out of this hole I have dug I might see daylight again..... I forgot to bring a ladder with me when I started to dig this well.

seskoad
17th July 2003, 00:30
Nothing wrong about religion. The only wrong is people who misinterpret purpose of religion. If you read history of god by Karen armstrong, it is said that in earlier chapter that religion/believing in god is natural behaviour of human being. In ancient time before religion was introduced, most individual/ group will bow on something such as tree, statue, sun, etc. as they believe in "spirit" that more superior. It is a natural of human being to have "something" to depend on, complain and even asking to. That something is known as "god". There are 2 categories of religion, which called "Samawi" and "Duniawi". These term is in arabic languange. "Duniawi" is religion like budha, tao, shinto, hindu and etc. "Samawi" is the religion that come directly from god with media such as prophet, angel and bible. Religion in this category is jew, christian and Islam. And remember that those 3 religions are connected. As claimed in national geographic magazine that Abraham (Ibrahim as. in arabic language) was the father of 3 religions. He (as) had two sons, which were Isaac (Ishak as.) and Ishmael (Ismail as.) From Isaac came down to jesus (Isa as.) and from Ishmael came down to Muhammad (saw). A brazilian jew girl who studied english in Melbourne once said this to me, "we are cousin". And I thought yeah, she's right. But if you read history, these 3 religions always fight each other or become a victim of the other two or allied with another against the other one. In present time like this, people blame it on religion. But me personally blame on the greeds of mankind. When it's about land, power and money, human being will fight each other as if they represent their religion and god. But mostly is only greeds of human being. One side might be right and other might be wrong. It's priviledge of human being to have a free will to choose a side or maybe create the third side. At the end, it's a duty for all mankind even from "samawi" and "duniawi" to keep peace on earth.