Religions, Archaic Relics Of The Past?

anything you can explain with religion, can be aptly explained through scientific, or philosophical means, without evoking the authority of some unknowable, unfathomable unprovable being. most people with a good education who werent indoctrinated (or what seems to fit the description of brainwashing) can see through modern religion's mythos(because education and common knowledge already killed off hundreds if not thousands of older religions). is the final nail in the coffin going to end up being: religions will be augmented into a counter-culture of Relativism and Postmodernism? it seems to be developing that way with most groups ive seen. religions seem highly divisive in the modern world where everyone seems to want to be connected and in contact. what are your thoughts? will they just crumble down to conflicting moral structures?

been all morning, sorry for grammar.

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman said:

anything you can explain with religion, can be aptly explained through scientific, or philosophical means, without evoking the authority of some unknowable, unfathomable unprovable being.

Click to expand...

this may, in most cases, very well be true. through reason and experimentation we may be able to answer many of the questions that are addressed by religion, but just what percentage of the world's population do you think is really capable of going through the steps necessary to reach those conclusions? of the billions of people living on this earth, only a relative handful have the physical and intellectual tools at their disposal to come up with all these answers and many of those are far too busy with the business of survival to bother with that sort of thing. we are, for the most part, little more than ignorant savages, depending on others to answer the questions we simply don't have the time to answer for ourselves.

religion may be a primitive relic, but it has provided answers for the ignorant for centuries and has often been the necessary glue that holds the fabric of society together. religion's origins may partially be the product of simple fear of the unknown, but it has evolved to become a source of social order. it is quite easy to claim we have outgrown the need for these primitive answers as you sit there in your comfy chair, tapping away at your keyboard and availing yourself of all the advantages your life and education afford. there is, however, that vast majority that lacks those advantages or is simply incapable of utilizing them and that still needs the sort of order and promise that religion holds. even the most advanced, educated societies on earth contain massive portions of their population for whom ignorance is the norm and superstition is preferable to the stark realities of a cruel world.

what most every anti-religious zealot fails to admit is that none of these religions have ever truly died. from animism, through the pantheons and into the various monotheistic creeds, they have all evolved into what we are left with today. odin, zeus, krishna and jehovah will never die, they will merely become something else. they will change names, change aspects, sometimes even melding several deities into one, but the power and promise behind the myths is eternal. man is simply an animal cursed with an intelligence that demands answers. poverty and ignorance is our natural state and, despite how smart we may think we are, we are quite capable of deluding ourselves for the sake of those answers.

true, gods arent hard to kill, its the idea behind them that is.

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman said:

true, gods aren't hard to kill, its the idea behind them that is.

Click to expand...

that's because those ideas represent a basic need within the people these religions serve. order, a sense that there is justice and a reason for our existence are earthly desires that religions have always fulfilled for the masses. throughout history we have watched every form of secular authority pervert even the most altruistic intent for its own ends, so it is the divine that we always turn to for a path to our greatest ambitions. the divine does not need to steal from us or enslave us for its power. divine power is inherent and, unlike our leaders, our gods need nothing from us to complete themselves. our gods excuse us for our impotence, because all mortals are powerless before the divine.

undertheice said:

that's because those ideas represent a basic need within the people these religions serve. order, a sense that there is justice and a reason for our existence are earthly desires that religions have always fulfilled for the masses. throughout history we have watched every form of secular authority pervert even the most altruistic intent for its own ends, so it is the divine that we always turn to for a path to our greatest ambitions. the divine does not need to steal from us or enslave us for its power. divine power is inherent and, unlike our leaders, our gods need nothing from us to complete themselves. our gods excuse us for our impotence, because all mortals are powerless before the divine.

Click to expand...

Really? every single religion to make it big and get organized is basically a long running ponzi scheme, serving its own ends, and keeping its criminals away from scrutiny. look at Catholics shuffling pedophile priests/bishops/clergymen, look as baptist priest paying out children whom have been molested in order to keep their super churches alive. Islam has an issue where even those who aren't considered extremists, will shelter those who are, and keep terrorist groups who want to wage jihad away from JUSTICE. as for my personal opinion, there is no greater ambition than to learn the truth about why why exist, how the natural world works and to spread that knowledge. seriously, i dont need to name the religious leaders who use their position to gain wealth and political clout. its been happening since religions inception. and as for the metaphysical beings called "Gods" excusing us for our human condition, which we cannot change, evolution pretty much answers that. Im pretty much taking this as the apologetics for such beliefs, or what someone who would believe in such things would hold true to them, because its hard to think about something like religion and its effect on society in a rational way, then come to the conclusion that it is actually a beneficial addition. i dont believe that having a false belief is better than having no belief. i think people would be better off if they were more invested in the real world which they live, than the next life they are granted after death (the great imagining of afterlife). superstition and certainty(believing to be true)of the supernatural tends to perpetuate counter-intuitive rituals(sacrifices, genital mutilation). these range from annoying phrases like "bless you", when sneezing is clearly a good thing, there is no black death to fear of, no devil to steal your soul after you sneeze.

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman said:

Really? every single religion to make it big and get organized is basically a long running ponzi scheme, serving its own ends, and keeping its criminals away from scrutiny.....

Click to expand...

i can't even begin to count the number of times i've heard this same sort of attack on religion, but it is impossible to name any of man's endeavors that are not plagued by the same sorts of corruption. you attempt to hold religion to a higher standard and you still fail miserably in your condemnation. for each foul deed done in the name of religion, there are scores of noble actions inspired by those same doctrines and millions of people who find positive purpose in their faith. your entire post is filled with "i believe" this and "i think" that, but you discount what the faithful think and believe in the most cavalier fashion. the truth of the matter is that your "personal opinion" holds no more weight than those of the believers. your "truths" concerning the intangibles in life are no more valid than the truths held self-evident by the faithful.

so people read a book, some do good, some do bad. that can be said about any philosophy or religion. true. and yet, when they do bad, they have a book to point to and use it as their reasoning... that is my point. if we had people going around murdering people in the name of survival of the fittest, because he read On The Origin of Species, we would know that is not something to excuse the act because we live in a world that agrees murder is wrong. you seem to be saying if religion werent around, people couldn't read the bible and take something good from it. i think they can, but to use it in such a divicive way as they do now in our modern renditions of these religions is just sad, and makes me smile thinking of the day it will be rightly put into the Fiction section of libraries around the world. and yea, my opinion isnt worth any more than a believers, but scientific proof is worth a WHOLE lot more than faith, especially when it is demonstrable. and whether you like it or not, religions have set in laws of their own in order to keep their flock from leaving and becoming seculars. ideas of afterlife of punishment, reprisal, damnation. even death. it isnt impossible to name an endeavor of man in which it isnt plagued by corruption, its called science. religions arent all created equally, some are philosophies that hold sacred characters and rituals, for instance Buddhism, or even Hinduism. and so many opperate on different levels, those that arose in the middle east are militaristic, those in the east are self-reflective and based on aiding the human condition more than anything. i think the only thing that is harmless about religion is that it give meaning, other than that, it perverts and retards our intelligence.

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman said:

so people read a book, some do good, some do bad. that can be said about any philosophy or religion. true. and yet, when they do bad, they have a book to point to and use it as their reasoning...

Click to expand...

not only can it be said of any philosophy or religion, it is also true of any cause or anything at all that people feel deeply enough about. the attempts to spread democracy around the world have resulted in countless deaths, but we haven't consigned it to the trash heap. the great socialist revolutions claimed millions of lives, but there are still plenty of folks who believe that such statist tripe isn't doomed to failure. how many people do you imagine have died over the years in the name of lasting peace?

do you really think this is about a book? there is far more to the world's religions than the scribblings of mortal men. these books are mere guides to try and understand the minds of our imaginary creators/creations. no one but a lunatic kills because it is written in a book. it is to further a cause, any cause, that men excuse the atrocities they commit. it is to create one homogeneous society that we have endured war after war and genocide after genocide. it's about each group of people believing that their way of life is superior and that everyone else must be made to understand that superiority.

it isn't impossible to name an endeavor of man in which it isn't plagued by corruption, its called science.

Click to expand...

you really are naive, aren't you. science not plagued by corruption? i don't think so. anything that may provide a man with power is capable of being corrupted and science is certainly no exception. some of mankind's great atrocities have been committed in the name of perfecting the race, creating those fittest to survive. the power of great wealth has led to findings being perverted and falsified. just take a look at the hype surrounding agw for a recent (ongoing) example of how the promise of power has corrupted the scientific process. science isn't this pristine discipline you are imagining. it is as prone to mankind's baser instincts as anything else.

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman said:

it isnt impossible to name an endeavor of man in which it isnt plagued by corruption, its called science.

Click to expand...

If not for corruption, explain why research studes on the same topic using the same parameters come up with opposite conclusions of each oher depending on who is paying for the research?


Buddhism is not a "philosophy", it worships the buddha as a deity and attributes powers to many different spiritual and mythological creatures. Hinduism is even farther from what you are attempting to convey - it's a polytheistic pagan religion filled with traditions of war, death, and petty squabbles just as any other mythological pantheon. Zen, Tao, Concufianism probably fit the definition of what you're trying to get across.


The physical benefits of spiritual practice are well documented. The pychological benefits are both documented and completely undeniable. There is a reason they teach meditation and spiritual practices in most schools in countries that have better education systems then the U.S., as well as many private schools within the U.S.

tacoman or something like that said:

i think the only thing that is harmless about religion is that it give meaning, other than that, it perverts and retards our intelligence.

Click to expand...

This is an incorrect assumption that I see spouted about all the time. Not only is it proven that meditation and spiritual practice improve thinking ability, create synapses, and combat stress, all of which serve to improve intelligence, there is even a specific type of intelligence that is recognized which focuses on spiritual and religious understanding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences#Existential

karri0n said:

If not for corruption, explain why research studes on the same topic using the same parameters come up with opposite conclusions of each oher depending on who is paying for the research?


Buddhism is not a "philosophy", it worships the buddha as a deity and attributes powers to many different spiritual and mythological creatures. Hinduism is even farther from what you are attempting to convey - it's a polytheistic pagan religion filled with traditions of war, death, and petty squabbles just as any other mythological pantheon. Zen, Tao, Concufianism probably fit the definition of what you're trying to get across.


The physical benefits of spiritual practice are well documented. The pychological benefits are both documented and completely undeniable. There is a reason they teach meditation and spiritual practices in most schools in countries that have better education systems then the U.S., as well as many private schools within the U.S.



This is an incorrect assumption that I see spouted about all the time. Not only is it proven that meditation and spiritual practice improve thinking ability, create synapses, and combat stress, all of which serve to improve intelligence, there is even a specific type of intelligence that is recognized which focuses on spiritual and religious understanding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences#Existential

[/B]

Click to expand...

1. the scientific method is a self correcting mechanism, and even if you have 5 people conducting an experiment under the same condition, you can recreate the same experiment yourself, so it can be tested, and corrected whenever errors are made, science is not in the business of corruption, its in the business of correction and accuracy. if you are wrong, then look forward to having your findings ridiculed and tossed by the wayside. buddha never claimed to be a deity, he is a figurehead and considered to be enlightened, its not the same, and hinduism has many deities but are all representative of expressions, not actual people.


2. since WHEN was meditation a "spiritual" activity, spirituality is such a meaningless word. its so ambiguous in its definition that i can say taking a dump is a spiritual experience. meditation and existentialism have to do with the person, not a spirit. meditation is not a creation of religion nor spirituality. i meditate myself and its just developed techniques of introspection.

undertheice said:

not only can it be said of any philosophy or religion, it is also true of any cause or anything at all that people feel deeply enough about. the attempts to spread democracy around the world have resulted in countless deaths, but we haven't consigned it to the trash heap. the great socialist revolutions claimed millions of lives, but there are still plenty of folks who believe that such statist tripe isn't doomed to failure. how many people do you imagine have died over the years in the name of lasting peace?

do you really think this is about a book? there is far more to the world's religions than the scribblings of mortal men. these books are mere guides to try and understand the minds of our imaginary creators/creations. no one but a lunatic kills because it is written in a book. it is to further a cause, any cause, that men excuse the atrocities they commit. it is to create one homogeneous society that we have endured war after war and genocide after genocide. it's about each group of people believing that their way of life is superior and that everyone else must be made to understand that superiority.

Click to expand...

I Agree.

undertheice said:

you really are naive, aren't you. science not plagued by corruption? i don't think so. anything that may provide a man with power is capable of being corrupted and science is certainly no exception. some of mankind's great atrocities have been committed in the name of perfecting the race, creating those fittest to survive. the power of great wealth has led to findings being perverted and falsified. just take a look at the hype surrounding agw for a recent (ongoing) example of how the promise of power has corrupted the scientific process. science isn't this pristine discipline you are imagining. it is as prone to mankind's baser instincts as anything else.

Click to expand...

Science works through the scientific method, it isnt interested in the ideals, goals or ends of the person performing the tests. it either works or it doesnt, if someone has the knowledge to make a nuclear bomb and use it to murder, then that is the person using the knowledge he obtained through science to cause harm, he didnt corrupt the science. it has a corrective design, if you change an equation to fit your own personal bias, odds are your hypothesis is bunk and has to be reworked entirely.

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman said:

Science works through the scientific method, it isn't interested in the ideals, goals or ends of the person performing the tests.

Click to expand...

science does not exist outside of the human condition. its facts may exist without us, but those are not science. science is the means we use to discover those facts and is as effected by our humanity as any of our other endeavors. your claim that it is self-correcting is still dependent on our perceptions and biases and does not assure a perfectible outcome, regardless of even the purest of intentions. science is prone to the same exploitation and corruption that you have laid at the feet of religion, whether its acolytes choose to believe it or not.

hey OMGWTFPDQASAP, ever heard of electronic voice phenomena? I would like to see you try to scientific method that away! even more specifically are you aware of the work entitled An Electromagnetic-Etheric Systems Approach to Communications with other Levels of Human Consciousness ? this work was carried out mostly in 1981 by the MetaScience Foundation using your sacred Scientific Method throughout the research and subsequent discoveries.

bobbypyn said:

hey OMGWTFPDQASAP, ever heard of electronic voice phenomena? I would like to see you try to scientific method that away! even more specifically are you aware of the work entitled An Electromagnetic-Etheric Systems Approach to Communications with other Levels of Human Consciousness ? this work was carried out mostly in 1981 by the MetaScience Foundation using your sacred Scientific Method throughout the research and subsequent discoveries.

Click to expand...

yea its a bunch of pseudo-science. already been debunked.

oh REALLY...? then how am I in touch with persons who have shed their physical bodies, on a daily basis? Via similar means as those employed by MetaScience? You are woefully misinformed, homey. but whatever; not believe whatever you want to; changes nothing of the facts of the matter.

and perchance do you have any theories as to why MetaScience would openly deceive people? Money? they weren't selling anything. Fame? they knew they were going to face derision from the scientific community, yet they persisted in releasing their findings. Why? To what end, I would ask you? pseudo-science my ass.

http://www.worlditc.org/h_07_meek_spiri_000_007.htm#page 5

for those of you with an open mind and a sense of adventure!

The only true religion is Fundaligionism. All hail Phineas.

If you have read:

our illustrated booklet THE MAGIC OF LIVING FOREVER

our technical manual SPIRICOM

our large chart "In Our Father's House there are Many Mansions

and listened to:

our cassette or phono records, "SPIRICOM -- Its Development & Potential"

you have been exposed to much information that is not encompassed by the sciences in which you operate. If these concepts differ so greatly from your present awareness of self and universe, that you find them emotionally or intellectually upsetting; or if you are inclined to brush them off as utter nonsense, consider the following statements. Four great scientists, each in his own way, reminded his colleagues of the need for keeping an open mind.

Max Planck, describing the dilemma facing science, said, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear - headed science to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research, "THERE IS NO MATTER AS SUCH!"

Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday said, "Now you think that I am looking back at my life's work with calm satisfaction. But, on a closer look, it is quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm and I am not sure if I was on the right track at all."

Sir Isaac Newton said, "I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to be like a boy playing on the seashore, diverting himself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay still uncovered before me."

Sir Arthur Eddington said, "I am standing on the threshold about to enter a room. It is a complicated business. In the first place I must shove against an atmosphere pressing with a force of fourteen pounds on every square inch of my body. I must make sure of landing on a plank traveling at 20 miles a second around the sun. I must do this while hanging from a round planet, head outward in space, and with a wind of ether blowing at no one knows how many miles a second through every interstice of my body. The plank has no solidity of substance. To step on it is like stepping on a swarm of flies. Shall I not slip through? Verily it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a scientific man to pass through a door. And whether the door be a barn door or a church door, it might be wiser that he should consent to be an ordinary man and walk through, than for all the difficulties involved in a really scientific ingress to
be resolved."

"It is a great pity that human beings cannot find all of their satisfaction in scientific contemplativeness." Neils Bohr

"When the great innovation appears, it will almost certainly be in muddied, incomplete and confusing form. To the discoverer himself, it will be only half understood; to everybody else it will be a mystery. For any speculation which does not at first glance look crazy, there is no hope."
Niels Bohr

"We few fellow mortals who have today created a crude device for instrumental communication with the so-called dead, are certain to be greeted by laymen and scientists with the same or even greater skepticism, disbelief and derision. We will reap charges of "ventriloquism" or other forms of hoax. The fact that the inventors of this "crazy" new system seem to have a somewhat muddied comprehension of the underlying laws of nature which must be involved, is also completely in line with Bohr's remarkably cogent insight." George W. Meek